Developing behavioural indicators, as part of a wider set of indicators, to assess the welfare of elephants in UK zoos

Defra Project WC1081 Final report May 2015

Prepared for: Zoos policy team Defra Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6EB

Prepared by: University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine & Health Science School of Veterinary Medicine & Science Sutton Bonington Leicestershire LE12 5RD

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project received generous support from many people. Specifically, a special thanks to all the keepers, animal managers and other zoo personnel who took time out of their busy schedules to support the project in so many ways. A special thanks to the management and staff at Twycross Zoo, Chester Zoo, Colchester Zoo, Knowsley Safari Park, and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo for all the time spent in trialling the prototype welfare assessment tool. We also wish to thank those who assisted with pilot data collection and analysis of video footage including: Ana Maria Martos Martinez-Caja, Esme Taylor-Roberts, James Mursell, Naomi Harvey, Chantelle Whelan, Chelsea Terry and Emma Mellor. We are very grateful to Carly Chadwick who conducted all of the focus group teleconferences and to the Expert Advisory Panel members: Charlotte Macdonald (Twycross Zoo), Oliver Burman (University of Lincoln), Samantha Bremner-Harrison (Nottingham Trent University), Ros Clubb (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Francoise Wemelsfelder (SRUC) and Phyllis Lee (University of Stirling). Thanks to Lizzie Webber, Shermin de Silva and Phyllis Lee for sharing their expertise in wild elephant behaviour and to Douglas Grindlay for his guidance with systematic literature reviews. We are appreciative of the invaluable guidance and other support with this project from the policy and evidence team at Defra, and their external experts, Matt Hartley (Zoo and Wildlife Solutions, Ltd.) and John Eddison (Plymouth University).

The Project Team

The University of Nottingham team that worked on this study included:  Lucy Asher BSc, MSc, PhD  Ellen Williams MSc  Lisa Yon BSc, DVM, PhD, MRCVS

USES AND USERS OF THIS REPORT

This report is intended for use by: Zoos, BIAZA’s Elephant Welfare Group (EWG), Defra, UK Governments and policymakers.

i

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

A novel tool was created to assess the welfare of captive elephants using behavioural indicators of welfare. The tool was designed for use by elephant keepers to provide a rapid, reliable and valid way to monitor changes in the welfare of elephants over time.

A detailed and extensively evidence-based review was made of the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) guidelines on keeping elephants. This evidence was reviewed by experts, who made suggestions for revisions to the current guidelines.

RATIONALE

In response to concerns expressed over elephant welfare in UK zoos, the UK government requires zoos to show improvements in elephant welfare. Objective and regular assessment of elephant welfare is needed in order to provide evidence of these mandated improvements. Thus, there is a need for a rapid, reliable, validated, user-friendly elephant welfare assessment tool that can be used by keepers to monitor their elephants.

Guidelines for captive elephant management are typically based on personal opinion, as scientific evidence often is not available. This evidence may be lacking because it is difficult to assess the welfare of zoo animals. There are typically few animals at each facility and little standardisation in husbandry and housing across zoos.

The project had two primary objectives:

1. Create a reliable and validated (as far as possible in the available timeframe) evidence-based behavioural welfare assessment tool for elephants 2. Review existing UK guidelines for elephants in captivity

METHODS

Create a reliable and validated (as far as possible in the available timeframe) evidence-based behavioural welfare assessment tool for elephants

Behavioural measures of welfare were identified from two sources: (1) a rapid review of the literature and (2) teleconferences with stakeholders. These identified behavioural welfare measures were reviewed by the project’s External Advisory Panel (EAP) to create a list of welfare measures to include in the tool. Measures were selected based on: the strength of evidence of their validity or importance as welfare measures, their feasibility and practicality for use by elephant keepers, and the inclusion of a range of measures across different areas of welfare.

ii

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

A prototype tool was created based on this list of measures. Question types which had previously been shown to be effective in other practical assessments of welfare were used in this prototype. The prototype tool was trialled at five UK zoos. The validity, reliability and feasibility of the questions in the tool were rigorously evaluated against established criteria. Based on these analyses, the majority of the questions from the prototype tool met the criteria for reliability and validity; all these questions were also found to be feasible in a zoo setting, and were included in the final tool.

In order to individualise the tool, the influences of an elephant’s background and/or health on the elements of the tool were assessed. It is essential that these individual factors are considered when comparing the results of the tool between different elephants. A final version of the tool and a user-friendly handbook were created.

Review existing UK guidelines for elephants in captivity

Physical and social resources important to elephants were identified from two sources: (1) review of the literature, and (2) teleconferences held with stakeholders. These identified resources were ranked, in terms of their importance to captive elephants, by attendees at a stakeholder workshop (this included keepers, managers and veterinarians from 11 British and Irish elephant-holding zoos).

The SSSMZP guidelines were reviewed by the EAP using all the evidence gathered (from the literature review, from the teleconferences, and from the rankings from the stakeholder workshop). A summary table was produced, highlighting areas where the evidence supported, or suggested potential changes, which could be made to the current SSSMZP guidelines for elephants. This table can be used by policy-makers when considering revisions to the SSSMZP guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

For each of these two project objectives, an evidence-based approach was used, involving: 1) synthesis of peer-reviewed and other literature, 2) consultation to garner stakeholder opinion and, 3) review of the evidence from (1) & (2) with an expert panel. It is suggested that this can be a useful approach benefiting from the broader, practical perspective of stakeholders. This can provide a wider perspective than that solely available from reviewing the published literature. Furthermore, this approach generated enthusiasm by, and engagement with, stakeholders.

Throughout this project, a range of additional areas needing further study were identified. A table was developed summarising these future research needs. Further study could be undertaken on these topics to advance knowledge on measuring and improving elephant welfare.

iii

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

CONTENTS PART ONE: MAIN REPORT 1. General Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Aims and objectives ...... 2 2. Work Package 1: Development of Elephant behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool ...... 3 2.1 Review of existing measures of welfare ...... 3 2.1.1 Introduction: components of good behavioural welfare measures ...... 4 2.1.2 Methods ...... 5 2.1.3 Results...... 7 2.1.4 Discussion ...... 9 2.2 Consultation with stakeholders through focus group teleconferencing ...... 9 2.2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2.2 Methods ...... 10 2.2.3 Results...... 11 2.2.4 Discussion ...... 13 2.3 Create a prototype individual elephant behaviour monitoring tool ...... 13 2.4 Assess concurrent validity, reliability and feasibility of prototype monitoring tool ... 15 2.4.1 Introduction ...... 15 2.4.2 Methods ...... 17 2.4.3 Results...... 18 2.4.4 Discussion ...... 20 2.5 Analyse differences in assessment tool scores according to elephant background 21 2.5.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.5.2 Methods ...... 21 2.5.3 Results...... 22 2.5.4 Discussion ...... 23 2.6 Produce individual elephant behavioural welfare monitoring tool with accompanying handbook ...... 24 3. Work package 2: Review existing SSSMZP guidelines for elephants in captivity ...... 26 3.1 Complete a rapid review of literature on resources of importance to elephants ..... 26 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 26 3.1.2 Methods ...... 27 3.1.3 Results...... 28 3.1.4 Discussion ...... 29 3.2 Gather stakeholder opinion to identify priority resources for captive elephants ..... 29 3.2.1 Teleconferences ...... 29 3.2.2 Stakeholder workshop on resources of importance to elephants ...... 32 3.3 Compare published evidence and stakeholder opinion with SSSMZP guidelines .. 36

iv

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

3.3.1 Introduction ...... 36 3.3.2 Methods ...... 36 3.3.3 Results...... 37 3.3.4 Discussion ...... 54 4. Conclusions ...... 55 References ...... 57 PART TWO: APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods for elephants ... 65 Appendix B: Focus group teleconference script ...... 70 Appendix C: Results from focus group discussions on behavioural measures of captive elephant welfare ...... 72 Appendix D: Finalised list of welfare measures to consider for inclusion in welfare assessment tool ...... 76 Appendix E: Prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool ...... 79 Appendix F: Detailed methods and results from Final Report, Section 2.4 (Assess concurrent validity, reliability and feasibility of the prototype monitoring tool) ...... 97 F.1 Methods ...... 97 F1.2 Data analysis of reliability and validity ...... 107 F.2 Results ...... 109 Appendix G: Detailed methods and results for analysis of influence of individual elephant background on prototype tool ...... 118 G.1 Methods ...... 118 G.2 Results ...... 118 Appendix H: Handbook for use of Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool ...... 120 Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool ...... 133 Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants...... 145 Appendix K: Summary of resources identified by focus group teleconference participants ...... 183 Appendix L: Finalised lists of resources identified from literature and focus groups ...... 184 L.1 Enclosure-related resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups ...... 184 L.2 Social resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups ...... 185 L.3: Feeding and enrichment-related resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups ...... 185 Appendix M: Stakeholder workshop agenda ...... 187 Appendix N: Stakeholder workshop attendee register ...... 190 Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop ...... 191 Appendix P: Identified priorities for future research...... 205

v

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Tables in report

Table 1 Details of database search for literature on welfare measures in elephants Table 2 Behavioural welfare indicators cited in literature and number of citations Table 3 Behavioural welfare indicator categories, examples, and correlation with other welfare indicators Table 4 Summary of origin, role at facility and number of participants in stakeholder teleconferences Table 5: Behavioural categories identified by stakeholders in focus groups, example behaviours given, and whether each is associated with positive or negative welfare (if stated) Table 6: Summary of the main types of reliability and validity for measures of welfare rated by an assessor or rater Table 7: Summary of dates and trials of prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool Table 8: Overview of reliability (between raters) and validity (by comparison with detailed behaviour observations) for each element of the tool Table 9: Summary of the individual factors and the measure(s) they affect in the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool Table 10: Details of database search for literature on resources of importance to captive elephants Table 11: Social resources - ‘essential’ Table 12: Enrichment & feeding resources - ‘essential’ Table 13: Enclosure resources - ‘essential’ Table 14: Evidence-based review of SSSMZP elephant guidelines

Tables in Appendices

Table A.1: Definitions of methods of assessing welfare Table A.2: Summary of information extracted from the 33 critically reviewed publications Table A.3: Behavioural indicators of welfare which have been used in assessment of captive elephant welfare Table C.1: Indicators of elephant welfare identified by focus group participants Table F.1 Daytime ethogram Table F.2: Night time ethogram Table F.3: Overview of data analysis used to assess reliability and validity Table F.4: Reliability statistics for the three parts of the behavioural welfare tool Table F.5: Concurrent validity statistics for the daytime behavioural observations part of the behavioural welfare tool Table F.6: Concurrent validity statistics for the night-time behavioural observations part of the behavioural welfare tool Table F.7. Construct validity predictions and relevant statistics Table J.1: Enclosures – appraised literature Table J.2: Social resources - appraised literature

vi

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Table J.3: Enrichment and Food - appraised literature Table J.4: Enclosures - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Table J.5: Social - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Table J.6: Food and enrichment - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Table K.1: Resources identified by stakeholder focus group participants Table O.1: Social resources - workshop mean rankings Table O.2: Enclosures resources - workshop mean rankings Table O.3: Feeding & enrichment resources - workshop mean rankings

Figures:

Figure 1: Resource ranking scale presented to workshop participants

vii

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Recent concerns over elephant welfare in UK zoos have implications for the future of elephants in captivity. Zoo elephant welfare across North America and Europe has been criticised [1-4], sparking a widespread response both by the public and by animal welfare organisations [5, 6]. In the UK, specific concerns were raised by a report on the welfare of elephants in UK zoos [7]; the report was reviewed by the government advisory body on zoo matters, the Zoos Forum [8]. The Zoos Forum concluded that “... if solutions to welfare problems and threats cannot be found, if no or negligible evidence of improved health and welfare can be observed, and if there is no compelling reason to breed elephants in the UK, then, in our opinion zoos should take steps to stop keeping elephants” [8].

The Zoos Forum report advocated development of an independent Elephant Advisory Group[8]. In response, at the request of the UK government, the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) developed the Elephant Welfare Group (EWG) in 2011. The objectives of this group were: (1) To take vigorous and concerted action to ensure that UK collections maintain their elephants to the highest standards based on current knowledge, and (2) To ensure strategic research is carried out to advance knowledge relating to the husbandry, health and welfare of elephants to support objective 1 [9]. The EWG was given a 10 year time frame in which UK zoos must show improvements in elephant welfare, with a progress report to be submitted after 5 years; this is due to be submitted to the government in January 2016 [10].

Some studies began the work of assessing elephant welfare in the UK. The study by Clubb and Mason[2] was an epidemiological assessment which gave an overview across European zoos, but did not explore behaviour of individual elephants. The Harris, Sherwin and Harris study [11] conducted a widespread analysis of behaviour and welfare across all 14 British and Irish elephant-keeping zoos, but due to constraints of time and funding, elephant behaviour and welfare were assessed in a ‘snapshot’ fashion, based on brief observation periods. The welfare score generated for each elephant in that study was not validated.

Other studies have focussed on judging the current welfare state of elephants, but few studies have developed methods for assessing elephant welfare on a routine basis. Yet objective and regular assessment of elephant welfare is needed to be able to monitor and provide evidence of any improvements, as was mandated by the Zoos Forum and the House of Lords [8, 10].

Guidelines for captive elephant management are typically based on personal opinion; managers and policy makers lack a scientific evidence base to inform development of guidelines [12]. This evidence base may be lacking because the assessment of zoo animal welfare is difficult. There are typically few animals of each species, and little standardisation in husbandry and housing across facilities [13].

This project was designed to develop and validate, as far as possible, a behavioural welfare assessment tool for use by stakeholders at zoos, by zoo inspectors, and by

1

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

the EWG. Evidence was also gathered to assess current UK guidelines for captive elephants.

1.2 Aims and objectives The project had two broad aims, and for each of these a separate work package was designed. These were:

1. Create a reliable and validated (as far as possible) evidence-based behavioural welfare assessment tool for elephants (Work package 1) 2. Review existing UK guidelines for elephants in captivity (Work package 2)

For each work package an evidence-based approach was taken based on: 1) synthesis of scientific and other literature, 2) consultation to garner stakeholder

opinion and, 3) review of the evidence from 1) & 2) with an expert panel.

The objectives of the project were: 1.1. Complete a rapid review of existing measures of elephant welfare 1.2. Consult with stakeholders through focus group teleconferencing. 1.3. Create a prototype individual elephant behaviour monitoring tool 1.4. Assess concurrent validity, reliability and feasibility of the prototype monitoring tool 1.5. Analyse differences in monitoring tool scores according to elephant background 1.6. Produce individual elephant behaviour monitoring tool with accompanying handbook. 2.1. Complete a rapid review of literature on resources of importance to elephants 2.2. Gather stakeholder opinion to identify priorities for resources for captive elephants 2.3. Compare published evidence and stakeholder opinion with SSSMZP guidelines

2

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

2. WORK PACKAGE 1: DEVELOPMENT OF ELEPHANT BEHAVIOURAL WELFARE ASSESSMENT TOOL Summary of Work Package 1

This work package involved developing and testing an elephant behavioural welfare assessment tool for use by keepers at UK zoos. This was achieved by:

 Identifying behavioural measures of welfare from two sources: o Rapid review of the literature o Teleconferences held with stakeholders  Review of the behavioural measures of welfare by the project’s External Advisory Panel.  Selection of measures to be included in the behavioural welfare assessment tool based on: the strength of evidence of their validity or importance as welfare measures, their feasibility and practicality for use by elephant keepers, the inclusion of a range of measures across different areas of welfare.  Creation of a prototype behavioural welfare assessment tool based on this list of selected measures, using a range of question types previously demonstrated to be effective for use in other practical assessments of welfare. The tool was designed to ideally take no longer than 30 minutes to complete for each elephant being assessed.  Trialling of the prototype tool at each of five UK zoos.  Assessing the validity, reliability and feasibility of the questions in the tool against established criteria.  Understanding which aspects of an elephant’s background or health status might influence welfare assessments made using the tool.  Creation of a final version of the Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool based on assessment of validity, reliability, and feasibility, and the influence of individual factors.  Creation of an accompanying Handbook to explain use of the new welfare tool.

2.1 Review of existing measures of welfare Summary: In order to determine potential measures for inclusion in an Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool, publications discussing methods of assessing captive elephant welfare were identified and reviewed. This involved evaluation of peer-reviewed literature using systematic and repeatable search strategies, and application of criteria of inclusion. Behavioural indicators of welfare identified from this search were categorised into nine areas, and the strength of evidence for each measure was assessed using a number of criteria. Non-peer-reviewed (grey and other) literature was also reviewed to identify additional welfare measures.

3

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

2.1.1 Introduction: components of good behavioural welfare measures Animal welfare has been defined in its simplest form as the state of an individual “as regards its attempt to cope with its environment” [14]. For the purposes of this review, animal welfare is described as a concept which encompasses: mental and physical health, engagement with the physical or social environment, and the opportunity to exhibit control or choice. This is similar to the definition suggested by Dawkins [15], who defined welfare as whether or not an animal: (1) is healthy and (2) has what it wants.

Maintaining a high level of welfare for animals in any captive environment is of paramount importance. The very nature of the captive environment usually means individuals are being exposed to a range of situations which they would rarely, or never, experience in the wild. Stressors experienced by captive animals have been described[16] as either being environmental (e.g. inappropriate substrates, loud noises) or confinement-specific (e.g. lack of physical space, inappropriate social groups).

There are a number of behavioural measures of welfare that might be used to assess the welfare of zoo elephants. Abnormal behaviours are commonly used, and one of the most validated behavioural measures of zoo elephant welfare is stereotypic behaviour. [17] Stereotypies are defined as ‘repetitive, invariant behaviour patterns with no obvious goal or function’ [18]. However, the use of stereotypies as a sole indicator of welfare must be treated with caution [19]. The root cause of the stereotypic behaviour may not be linked to their current environment, and thus may not be a measure of the current welfare of the individual. Other potential behavioural measures of well-being in zoo elephants include signs of affective state and measures of preference or avoidance [17].

Hill and Broom [20] advocate the use of a suite of related measures to identify the welfare state of an individual animal. Veasey[21] suggested that documentation of baseline time budgets and comparison with time budgets in new environmental or social conditions, or comparison with wild elephant time budgets may be a valid means of measuring captive elephant welfare. Being able to consistently and reliably predict how a measure of welfare may change following a change of circumstance can be used as a measure of validity [22].

In order to accurately assess welfare non-invasively, it is important to identify indicators which provide a reliable and valid assessment of welfare state. These indicators should differ between animals in different states of welfare and should be repeatable with the time frame of change in this welfare measure known.

In summary, behavioural measures of welfare can include:

 Suite of related measures  Abnormal behaviours (e.g. stereotypies)  Time budgets/activities  Consistent, reliable and valid measures that differentiate between elephants in different states of welfare, and are repeatable

4

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

2.1.2 Methods It was important to include a wide range of measures to capture the different aspects of welfare. An assessment of peer-reviewed literature was first performed, to identify well-validated measures for inclusion in the welfare assessment tool. In addition, because welfare assessment in elephants is not well established, grey and other literature was also considered, to identify other potential welfare measures. It was felt that these additional measures would help to give a more complete view of welfare.

Two reviews of the literature were undertaken: 1. A repeatable search and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed literature (rapid review) 2. Additional identification and descriptive review of relevant literature (grey and other literature review) 2.1.2.1 Repeatable search and critical appraisal of the literature (rapid review) Search methods

Published studies were identified from a number of databases, using a range of search terms relating to welfare of captive elephants. Details of the search are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1: Details of database search for literature on welfare measures in elephants

Databases searched Fields searched Terms included Scopus Titles ‘elephant’, ‘Elephantidae’, Web of Knowledge* Keywords ‘Loxodonta’, ‘Elephas’, Ovid** Abstracts ‘husbandry’, ‘housing’, ‘behav*’, ‘stress’, ‘health’, ‘living conditions’ *Web of Knowledge included: Core Collection, Biosis Citation Index, Biosis Previews, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, Medline, Zoological Records (2007 – present) ** Ovid included: CAB Abstracts, Psycinfo, Zoological Records (1978-2007)

Inclusion criteria

Only publications which met the following criteria were included in the rapid review:

1. Captive elephants were the main focus of the investigation. 2. The publication contained at least two of the search terms in the abstract. 3. The publication was available to the authors in full. 4. The publication was in a peer-reviewed journal. 5. The publication assessed the welfare, behaviour, physiology or physical condition of an elephant directly or using proxy reports (e.g. keeper assessment, questionnaires). 6. The publication was in English.

Exclusion criteria

5

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Studies containing the following were excluded from the rapid review:  Retrospective studies assessing population reproductive or morbidity (frequency of disease) rates.  Measures which involved human interaction (e.g. keeper-elephant interaction).

Critical appraisal

Each paper which met the inclusion criteria was critically reviewed to ascertain further details about the study and to evaluate the evidence that each measure identified was a good measure of elephant welfare (see Table 6, and Appendix Table A.1).

The critical appraisal assessed:  Sample population  Study design  Reliability and validity of the paper  Sampling technique  Method of assessing welfare  Measures of welfare used

For details on what was assessed in each paper, see Appendix Table A.2.

Indicators of welfare

Welfare indicators were extracted from the critically reviewed papers and categorised into three broad themes: 1. Behavioural 2. Physiological 3. Physical

Within each theme, welfare indicators were grouped wherever possible. A note was made of whether the measures: (a) changed at all (e.g. in concentration or frequency) during the period of the study (b) changed significantly during the period of the study (c) were correlated with any other measures of welfare identified during the period of the study (d) did not change during the period of the study and were not correlated with any other measures of welfare 2.1.2.2 Review of grey and other literature Additional relevant literature was identified using a number of different approaches. This included literature identified:  in the repeatable database search, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria for the critical appraisal (such as reviews, books, and conference proceedings)

6

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

 using internet searches of key terms and snowballing by searching the references lists of relevant literature  by members of the External Advisory Panel  by BIAZA or elephant holding zoos following an email request (including unpublished zoo studies)

The literature identified included non-peer-reviewed papers in journal articles, books, and unpublished zoo studies, as well as some specific literature on wild elephant behaviour.

In total, 188 additional references were reviewed descriptively to identify further possible behavioural indicators of welfare in captive elephants. 2.1.3 Results 2.1.3.1 Rapid review results Initial searches yielded 21,000 records, of which 33 publications met the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed. Twenty-seven unique indicators of welfare were identified from these 33 peer-reviewed papers (see Appendix Table A3 for summary).

Measures of welfare

Twenty-one behavioural measures of welfare were identified. The most frequently used behavioural welfare indicators are given in Table 2, as are the number of papers in which each measure was identified.

Table 2: Behavioural welfare indicators cited in literature and number of citations Behavioural measure # of citations

Abnormal behaviour 17

Comfort 12 Feeding 10 Locomotion 10 Resting 10

Social behaviour 7

Physical measures included assessment of body condition, general health, and foot health. Physiological measures included hormone (cortisol) analysis. As the focus of the current project was on behavioural measures, these other types of measures were removed from further consideration.

Welfare indicator strength

Behavioural indicators of welfare were broadly categorised into nine areas, and associations with other potential welfare indicators summarised (see Table 3 and Appendix Table A3).

7

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Table 3: Behavioural welfare indicator categories, examples, and correlation with other welfare indicators Correlation with Category Example of indicators other indicators* Abnormal Stereotypies, foot lifting, faeces Feeding behaviour manipulation, trunk swinging Walking Resting Foot health Cortisol Sleep/rest Standing rest, lying rest Walking Stereotypies Feeding Eating, drinking Walking Stereotypies Environmental Enrichment use, investigative/ exploratory interaction behaviour

Comfort (self- Dust bathing, mud wallowing, general maintenance) grooming Activity Walking/locomotion Rest Feeding Stereotypies Inactive Social Positive interactions (affiliation), negative interactions interactions (aggression) Other Vocalisations Play *Note: blank cell = no evidence in the literature that an indicator correlated with other indicators

The strength of evidence for each indicator was assessed based on:

 Correlation with other indicators  Results of the assessed indicator (significant change in indicator, or a percentage change)

See Appendix Table A3 for detailed breakdown of strength of evidence assessment for these welfare indicators.

These nine behavioural categories identified from the literature, which had evidence in support of their use, were selected for inclusion in the behavioural welfare assessment tool.

2.1.3.2 Results from grey and other literature review From this literature, an additional 78 measures of welfare were identified for consideration for inclusion in the Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. Because there has been little study of methods for behavioural assessment of welfare in captive elephants, it was important to capture these additional measures of welfare that were not included in the existing scientific literature. It was hoped these would help to provide a more comprehensive list of measures to behaviourally assess elephant welfare.

8

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

2.1.4 Discussion A review of literature was undertaken to identify behavioural measures used to assess captive elephant welfare. This included use of a systematic and repeatable search strategy to evaluate peer-reviewed literature. In addition, because this topic has not been well studied, non-peer-reviewed (grey) literature was also examined to identify additional measures not assessed in the peer-reviewed literature. It was intended that this approach would help to capture more of the existing behavioural measures of elephant welfare which might be used.

From the repeatable search and appraisal of the literature, 33 peer-reviewed papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria; from these, 27 unique measures of welfare were identified. From the additional grey literature examined, a further 78 welfare measures were identified. All of these welfare measures were considered for inclusion in the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool being developed.

2.2 Consultation with stakeholders through focus group teleconferencing Summary: In order to identify additional behavioural measures of welfare which were not present in the literature, semi-structured interviews were held via telephone with 36 stakeholders from the UK and around the world. Participants were asked how they would generally assess the welfare of a captive elephant, and to name specific behavioural indicators of both good and poor welfare. Expression of natural and abnormal behaviours, demeanour, social interactions, and vocalisations were all identified, and specific examples of each were given. This list of additional behavioural welfare measures was then considered for inclusion in the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool being developed. 2.2.1 Introduction Although evidence indicates that the knowledge and experience of keepers or carers is important to animal welfare assessment [22, 23], there have been few attempts to consult with zoo personnel and other stakeholders on the assessment of the welfare of elephants.

Harris and colleagues [7] asked 50 elephant experts to list the ten most important indicators of good and poor welfare in elephants, and the ten most important factors likely to lead to good and poor welfare. Gurusamy and colleagues[24] conducted an online survey of stakeholders’ opinions of the key welfare issues for captive elephants. Respondents were asked to rate a list of husbandry practices on their desirability for elephant welfare using a 1-7 scale. The authors advocated the inclusion of stakeholder opinion in the development of welfare standards.

A focus group is one of the many methods which can be used to gather stakeholder opinion. A focus group is ‘an informal discussion among selected individuals about specific topics' [25]. It involves one or more group discussions, in which participants focus on a topic or topics selected by the researcher [26], and discussion may be guided by predetermined questions. Since participants are encouraged to discuss and debate with one another [26], focus groups are particularly useful for exploring participants’ knowledge and experiences, and can generate more ideas than one-to-

9

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

one interviews [26-28]. They may also help to elicit the views and opinions of those who may be reluctant to talk about their experiences in one-to-one interviews, or those who may think they have little to contribute to a research project [29].

Focus groups have been used effectively to gather stakeholders’ opinions of animal welfare issues. Skarstad and colleagues [30] held focus groups with consumers to investigate public perceptions of farm animal welfare. Similarly, Miele and colleagues [31] consulted with scientists and the public to develop a method of assessing farm animal welfare that addressed public concerns. Responses from members of the public in focus groups were successfully used alongside the views of animal scientists to develop a welfare assessment system. 2.2.2 Methods Note: the data gathered during these teleconferences was also used for work package 2; therefore, the methods detailed here also apply to the teleconferences discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Study design

Stakeholders were invited to participate in focus groups using teleconferencing technology, in order to minimise costs and maximise the number of stakeholders that could participate.

A semi-structured method was utilised. Questions were kept consistent across all focus groups and specific, pre-planned prompts were used to stimulate discussion where necessary. A copy of the script used to conduct the focus groups can be found in Appendix B. Focus group discussions lasted approximately 60 minutes.

Participant recruitment and response

All 15 elephant-holding zoos in the UK and Ireland were invited to take part in the focus groups. Twelve facilities participated (representing 80% of elephant-holding facilities) and 14 focus groups were held with 25 zoo representatives (one to four individuals from each facility). In addition, five further focus group discussions were held with 11 experts on the welfare and behaviour of captive or free-ranging elephants from across the world. These details are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of origin, role at facility and number of participants in stakeholder teleconferences Participant Totals Role of participant Number Origin Zoos 12 facilities Keeper 14 (UK/Ireland) 25 zoo participants Curator/Manager 8 Veterinarian 2 Zoo-based researcher 1 Other 11 other Studies behaviour or 11 (worldwide) welfare, captive or free- ranging elephants

10

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Participants had worked with or studied either Asian (Elephas maximus) or African elephants (Loxodonta africana) or both species; overall they had an average of 4.3 years working with African elephants, and 8.3 years with Asian elephants.

Focus group topics Focus group discussions were structured around two general themes: 1. measures of elephant welfare 2. resources perceived to be of importance to elephants.

Questions about measures of elephant welfare centred on the use of behaviour to assess the welfare of captive elephants. Participants were asked how they would generally assess the welfare of any elephant, rather than the individual elephants currently in their care. Participants were also asked to name specific behavioural indicators of both good and poor welfare in captive elephants.

For the questions pertaining to resources or features of the environment that are important to elephants, participants were asked to describe their ideal elephant exhibit, including indoor and outdoor exhibits, and any environmental enrichment they felt would be beneficial for elephants.

Data Analysis Focus groups were audio recorded (with participant consent) and transcribed; any information relating to the identity of the participants was removed from the transcripts. The software program NVivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) was used to assist the data analysis process, and data were analysed using thematic analysis [32, 33]. This involved coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion, collating codes into potential themes, and defining, naming and reviewing the themes [32]. Coding was done by one team member, with validation and triangulation by other team members.

2.2.3 Results Participants described three broad categories of welfare indicators: behavioural; physical; and physiological. A full list of welfare indicators identified by participants can be found in the Appendix C, Table C.1, and details of the discussions are given in Appendix C.

The welfare assessment tool is based on a behavioural assessment of welfare, so only the behavioural indicators of welfare identified in the focus groups are addressed in this report.

Behavioural indicators of welfare Behavioural indicators of welfare included: natural behaviours, social interactions, abnormal behaviours and interactions with people. A detailed listing of behavioural indicators of welfare, and example behaviours, are given in Table 5. Additionally, if participants stated whether they were felt the behaviours indicated positive or negative welfare, this has also been noted. Detailed descriptions of the behavioural terms can be found in the ethograms given in Appendix F (Tables F.1 and F.2).

11

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Table 5: Behavioural categories and example behaviours identified by focus group participants Associated with Behavioural category Example behaviours positive(+) or negative(-) welfare Natural behaviour Digging + Drinking + Exploration + Feeding + Foraging + Interaction with substrate + Manipulating objects + Mud wallowing + Object play + Scratching or rubbing + Sleep or lying rest + Swimming (immersed) + Use of pool (excluding + immersed swimming) Abnormal Non- Coprophagy - behaviour stereotypic Self-directed - Stereotypic Foot lifting - Head banging - Head bobbing - Locomotor (e.g. pacing) - Rocking - Swaying - Weaving - Demeanour Alert + Attitude Ear position Facial expressions Posture Guilty looks Looking happy + Relaxed + Trunk position People and training Change in responsiveness Cooperation with keepers + Interaction with keepers Interaction with public Response to training Social interactions Affiliative behaviours + Aggression - Allomothering + Avoidance - Change in social interactions Compatibility + Consistency of association + Displacement - Dominance Excessive aggression -

12

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Associated with Behavioural category Example behaviours positive(+) or negative(-) welfare Food sharing Low or decreased social - interaction Play + Proximity Support + Synchrony within group + Trunk contact + Vocalisation Rumble Trumpet

The results from the discussions of resources of importance to elephants are summarised in section 3.2 of this report. 2.2.4 Discussion Consultations were held with a wide and representative range of stakeholders from across UK elephant-holding facilities and from other countries, to identify potential measures of elephant welfare. These welfare measures were identified for potential use in an Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. Input from stakeholders, especially from keepers, was considered crucial to the development of the welfare assessment tool, as they will be the primary users of the tool.

Rather than a closed question survey, such as that used by Gurusamy and colleagues, [24], open response focus groups were used to enable inclusion of novel suggestions outside the current knowledge base. The focus group participants identified behavioural, physical and physiological indicators with the potential to assess elephant welfare. The results were in line with those from the survey conducted by Harris and colleagues [11], in which 86% of respondents listed some aspect of behaviour as one of the ten most important welfare indicators, while 84% mentioned some aspect of physical health.

Participants identified a range of behavioural indicators of welfare, including natural behaviours, demeanour, social interactions, abnormal behaviours and interactions with keepers. Stakeholders were of the opinion that the expression of natural behaviours that would be observed in wild populations indicated good welfare in captive elephants.

2.3 Create a prototype individual elephant behaviour monitoring tool Summary: The behavioural welfare indicators identified from (1) the literature reviews and (2) stakeholder teleconferences, were combined into a summary list for consideration by the External Advisory Panel (EAP). Following review by the EAP, a list was developed containing 76 unique behavioural welfare measures to be considered for inclusion in the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. A prototype tool was then developed which incorporated as many of these measures as was deemed feasible.

13

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

A summary list was developed of behavioural welfare indicators identified through the stakeholder teleconferences, and from the literature, and each of these indicators was considered for inclusion in the welfare tool. During the teleconferences 74 measures of welfare were identified. From the peer reviewed literature, 41 measures of welfare were identified and a further 78 from non-peer reviewed literature. All of these measures were discussed with the project’s External Advisory Panel (EAP). Duplicates were removed and some measures were discounted by the External Advisory Panel as they were not behavioural measures of welfare. This resulted in 76 unique behavioural measures of welfare.

These behavioural welfare indicators were largely grouped under the following categories:  Social interactions  Abnormal behaviours  Arousal behaviours  Qualitative  Behaviours occurring under stress  Vocalisations  Cognitive measures  Environmental interactions  Facial expressions  Species appropriate behaviours/activity budgets  Defence behaviours  Comfort (e.g. self-maintenance)

With input from the External Advisory Panel, a final subset of welfare indicators was selected to consider for inclusion in the tool (see full list in Appendix D). This final selection was based on the strength of evidence of their validity or importance as welfare measures, their feasibility and practicality for use by elephant keepers and to provide a range of measures across different areas of welfare.

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) has been shown to be useful for practical welfare assessments. [23, 34-38] During the focus groups, stakeholders had identified demeanour as an important welfare measure. QBA has been designed to capture information on the expressive quality of an animal's demeanour; the External Advisory Panel suggested that this would be a particularly appropriate method to incorporate in the Welfare Assessment Tool.

Rest and nocturnal behaviour It has been suggested that total time spent asleep can be a reliable indicator of welfare [39, 40]. It was particularly felt by the External Advisory Panel that night-time behaviour needed further investigation, as very little is known about elephant behaviour during the overnight period when keepers are not present. Given the weight of evidence suggesting the importance of rest for good welfare, and the current paucity of information on overnight behaviour of zoo elephants, an assessment of night-time rest, and of other behaviour performed at night was therefore included in the prototype welfare tool.

14

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Overall welfare rating A single overall rating of welfare was also considered for inclusion in the tool. These overall assessments are believed to be complementary to more structured questions in ratings of human welfare, [41] because it is possible that more structured items may not capture all aspects of welfare for all individuals.

The tool was designed to take no longer than 30 minutes to complete.

The prototype tool consisted of 3 sections: 1. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) based on a short period of live observations during the day time. 2. Daytime behaviour questions A short questionnaire based on periods of daytime observations. 3. Night-time behaviour questions A checklist of overnight behaviours based on observations of overnight video footage.

For the full Prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool, see Appendix E.

2.4 Assess concurrent validity, reliability and feasibility of the prototype monitoring tool Summary: This section of the work package involved the detailed and methodical application of established, rigorous criteria to assess the reliability and validity of the newly developed Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. Using these methods, the majority of the questions from the prototype tool met the criteria for reliability and validity. These elements of the tool were then included in the final version of the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool (discussed in Section 2.6). 2.4.1 Introduction The purpose of this work package was to see which elements of a prototype welfare assessment tool could be used by elephant assessors to reflect behaviour consistently and reliably.

Modern welfare assessment has placed much focus on providing animal carers or inspectors with the tools to be able rate welfare on farm, in the laboratory, in the field, in a rescue shelter or at the zoo [23, 44-46]. Such methods have been developed using the same principles as scientific welfare measurement. Assessment of welfare conducted by scientists is often unwieldy, time consuming and requires specific animal training, assessor expertise or equipment. Welfare assessment tools developed for use by non-scientists should avoid the need for extensive equipment or training.

Part of the difficulty in measuring welfare, and the reason that scientists invest substantial time and resources in doing so, is that there is no single definitive measure which can reveal whether an animal is in a good or bad welfare state. This is because welfare is a construct; it exists because of the shared idea that there are states of living which are better or worse for animals. Constructs are formed from

15

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

different, but connected elements, which is why several measures of welfare are often used together to surmise if an animal is in a good or bad welfare state [47].

The elements of the constructs of welfare can be measured and can be objectively evaluated, according to how consistently they can be reported by the assessor or rater (to show reliability), and according to the level of evidence that the measurements reflect the construct they were designed to measure (to show validity of the measure). There are many different types of reliability and validity; the main ones are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: Summary of the main types of reliability and validity for measures of welfare rated by an assessor or rater Reliability or Type of test Details of test Validity Reliability Intra-rater Assess consistency when one person reliability repeatedly rates the animal Inter-rater Assess consistency when raters reliability simultaneously score the same animal Test-re-test Assess consistency in scoring by reliability raters over a longer period (e.g. more than 2 weeks) Internal Assess the level of associations consistency between grouped questions or measures Validity Content validity Assess whether individual questions (e.g. face validity) really ask what they are meant to be asking Construct validity Compare associations between questions or groups of questions with expectations Concurrent Compare measure to an independent criterion validity “gold standard” measure Predictive validity Assess measures ability to predict a future outcome or distinguish between groups.

Evaluation and refinement of the prototype behavioural welfare assessment tool for captive UK elephants was accomplished by:  Trial of the prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool at five UK elephant-holding zoos  Collection of information from zoo keepers on the feasibility of the prototype tool  Assessing the reliability (consistency) of the tool completed at multiple time points by multiple raters  Assessing the validity of the tool, particularly by comparison to a more in- depth objective behavioural assessment

16

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

2.4.2 Methods For brevity, a summary of the methods is presented in this report. For complete description of the methods, see Appendix F, Section F.1.

A prototype tool was tested at five elephant holding facilities in the UK by 16 keepers. These were selected to represent a range of facilities and collections with different contact systems, different species of elephants, group sizes (4, 4, 5, 7 & 9); and relatedness of elephants. In total, the prototype tool was applied to 29 elephants (24F: 5M, 9 African, 20 Asian).

A summary of the dates and trials of the prototype tool is given in Table 7.

Table 7: Summary of dates and trials of prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool Trial No. and Prototype tool Detailed behavioural observations Date One: Completed by Research Video footage of the elephants was 15 Sept – 24 Oct, Assistant and feedback collected over three consecutive 24 2014 collected by keepers hour periods, and was scored using Two: Modified version based two ethograms (day and night-time, 3 Nov – 5 Dec, on Trial One outcomes see Appendix Tables F.1 and F.2) 2014 completed by Research using scan sampling at 5 (day) and Assistant and Keeper 3 (night) minute intervals. Three: Completed by Keeper(s) No additional footage collected Minimum of 3 weeks after trial Two

Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool The prototype of the welfare assessment tool consisted of three parts (see Appendix E):

1. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA): twelve adjectives describing demeanour, scored on a continuous scale (otherwise known as a visual analogue scale). This was completed based on four 1-minute observations made on the first day of assessment (two observations in the morning, two in the afternoon)

2. Daytime behaviour questions: 35 questions, mostly concerning the frequencies at which certain behaviours were observed with some overall scoring of welfare. These were completed after three consecutive days on which four 5-minute behavioural observations were made each day.

3. Night-time behaviour questions: using an overnight video recording of the elephants, the behaviour of each elephant was observed every 30 minutes.

Data Analysis

17

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Analysis was performed to assess the validity, reliability and feasibility of the prototype monitoring tool, and to identify groupings of aspects of the tool (to reduce the number of different elements of welfare considered). Each of the types of validity and reliability outlined in Table 6. was considered, except predictive validity. It was decided that QBA should not be compared with detailed behaviour observations as it was not clear what the appropriate comparators would be. For the purposes of this report, reliability refers to tests of consistency between raters in the scores they obtain when using the tool; validity refers to comparisons made between detailed behavioural observations, and the scores assigned by using the tool. Construct validity refers to demonstrating and confirming that expected associations between elements of the tool are indeed observed. 2.4.3 Results An overview of the elements of the tool that were found to be reliable and valid can be seen in Table 8, (for complete results see Appendix F.2).

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment A number of the adjectives from this section were scored consistently between raters; these were:  One grouping of adjectives (Content, Relaxed, not Uncomfortable, not Agitated, not Tense and not Frustrated) which together could be considered to score an elephant being At ease in the environment  The adjectives Playful and Wary

Daytime behaviour questions  Three groupings of daytime behaviour questions were found: o The first grouping (covering Feeding, Feeding at scheduled time only, Waiting for scheduled events, and not Playing with others) could be considered to measure an elephant’s Dependence on routine o The second grouping (covering Wallowing, Interactions with environment and Affiliative behaviour), could be considered to measure an elephant Positively engaging with the physical and social environment. o The final grouping related to Activity (covering Walking and not Standing still).  Two of these groupings, Dependence on routine and Positive engaging with the physical and social environment, were scored consistently between different raters and agreed with results from detailed behavioural observations.  A further three individual elements (Stereotypy, Avoid others, Agonistic behaviour) were reliable across and between raters, and agreed with results from more detailed behaviour observations.

Night-time observations  Six of nine different behaviours recorded during night-time observations reached acceptable levels of reliability and validity.

18

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

 Some behaviours (Feeding, Lying behaviour and Stereotypy) were variable between the three nights of detailed behavioural observations.

Tool as a whole Findings supported the construct validity of the tool:  Predictions were made for associations between elements of the tool as a type of validity test (construct validity).  Many of these predictions were supported, although fewer were supported between night-time and QBA/daytime behaviour.  Many of the elements which were considered for inclusion in the final tool could together be used to predict the overall welfare rating given by keepers using the tool.

Table 8: Overview of reliability (between raters) and validity (by comparison with detailed behaviour observations) for each aspect of the tool Element of welfare tool Reliability Validity Include in final tool and accepted accepted comments QBA At ease with the YES YES environment (grouping) Playful YES YES Wary YES YES Fearful NO NO Attentive NO NO Depressed NO NO Distressed NO NO Daytime behaviour Agonistic YES YES YES Avoid others YES YES YES Stereotypy YES YES YES Dependence on routine YES YES YES (grouping) Engaging positively YES YES YES with the environment (grouping) Sand rolling YES NO NO Object play YES NO NO Activity (grouping) NO NO NO Dustbathing NO NO NO Water interactions NO NO NO Night-time observations Interaction Environment YES YES YES Feeding observations YES YES* YES** Lying rest near others YES YES* YES** Lying rest alone YES YES* YES** Longest period lying YES YES* YES** rest Stereotypy YES YES* YES** Standing rest others YES YES NO Standing rest alone NO YES NO

19

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Social behaviour NO YES NO Walking NO NO NO * A match between the detailed behaviour observations and this observation of night-time behaviour but only this was only reflective of one night, and did not match what happened on the other two nights of detailed observations. ** More research needed 2.4.4 Discussion Summary: This appraisal of the newly developed Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool involved the detailed and methodical application of established, rigorous criteria for assessing the tool’s reliability and validity. Using these methods, the majority of the questions from the prototype tool met the criteria for reliability and validity.

Further research needed As with any newly developed tool, there is always scope for further development. This project allocated time and resources for development and testing of this first prototype tool, and for development of a final version of the tool based on the results of the testing. It is intended that this tool will continue to be improved in the future; some of the results from this evaluation would be useful to consider for further refinement of the tool. It was difficult to know with certainty which night-time elements to include in a final tool, since a number of measures were found to be reliable, and reflected behaviour measured on the same night, but not over the longer time period of three nights. It may be worth extending the night time observations for the tool over more nights, but more would need to be known about the consistency of night-time behaviour over time.

In general, the elements of the tool were associated with one another in accordance with predictions, which supported construct validity. However, with the exception of social behaviour, fewer predictions were met between night-time observations and either daytime behaviour questions or QBA (which was also conducted during the daytime). More research is needed to understand how the behaviour of elephants during the day is associated with behaviour displayed at night. The welfare tool was not able to accurately assess movement or activity levels (walking or standing still). Alternative methods for assessing this behaviour could be sought in the future, as it can be an important part of physical welfare [48, 49]

In summary these areas were identified for future research:  Explore consistency of night time behaviour over time  Association between daytime and night time behaviour  Find alternative methods to assess movement or activity levels  Find alternative methods to assess a depressed, lethargic or dull demeanour

Limitations The sample size was originally expected to include a further two African elephants, which would have made the balance of African to Asian elephants more even, and would have been in accord with sample size calculations. These two elephants were transferred to a different elephant holding facility prior to the study being conducted. Even without these elephants, the sample size was sufficient to allow assessment of validity and reliability against pre-determined criteria. There was a small number of

20

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

males in the dataset (20%), however, this is largely reflective of the UK elephant population where ~25% are adult males. Due to the relatively small sample size, it was not appropriate to correct for multiple testing. The prototype tool would ideally have been tested at a larger number of facilities to provide a larger sample size. It would be helpful to test it across a longer period of time to understand the influence of seasonal variations in behaviour and to test whether the tool could detect changes in welfare over time. The effects of rater’s experience with elephants on the ratings they assigned was not investigated.

2.5 Analyse differences in assessment tool scores according to elephant background Summary: The purpose of this part of the work package was to analyse the potential impact of elephant background on the measures in the newly developed Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. It was determined that the following variables affected the measures assessed in the new welfare tool: age, foot score, gait score, origins (captive born or wild-caught), species (i.e. African or Asian), housing conditions (housed with related or non-related herd members), health status, length of time kept at the current facility, and presence of a calf or young juvenile in the group. It is essential that each of these individual factors is considered when comparing the results of the tool between different elephants. More research is needed to further elucidate the possible impact of these and other individual factors on the measures in the tool. 2.5.1 Introduction The elephants which are housed in captivity in the UK and Ireland are a diverse population. They come from a range of backgrounds: some from circuses, some from timber camps, some were born in captivity and some in the wild. Many of the older elephants have chronic or recurrent health conditions which are the result of ageing processes, and a range of ages of elephants exists in the population. The population contains two different species (Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus), bull and cow elephants, and related and unrelated herds. Previous research has demonstrated that factors such as the number of inter-zoo transfers experienced and an elephant’s wild or captive born background impact on survivorship [3]. Hill and Broom [20] suggested that the ability of an individual animal to cope with challenges faced in captivity is dependent upon their background and previous experiences. By monitoring the response of each animal to changes in their environment, it is possible to measure welfare on an individual level. Thus when developing a behavioural tool for assessing welfare, it was important to understand which ‘background’ variables impacted upon the welfare score assigned.

The aim of the activity described in this section was to help individualise the welfare assessment tool to adjust for factors such as elephant background and health.

2.5.2 Methods In order to assess the impact of ‘background’ variables on these welfare scores, data collected by the Elephant Welfare Group was collated on: body condition score (henceforth BCS); foot health score; gait score; species; sex; chronic or acute health

21

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

conditions experienced in the previous 12 months; any health condition (whether chronic or acute); whether the cow elephant had a calf in group; whether calves or young juveniles were present in group; the proportion of individuals in the group to which they were related and whether they were related to any other group members; the length of time they had resided at the zoo; the number of inter-zoo transfers; the elephant’s origin (i.e. captive-born or wild-caught) and whether the elephant had a history of a working background (circus or timber camp). Established definitions for a calf (0-2 years) or young juvenile (2-5 years) were used for this analysis [50].

Data analysis Each element or grouping of elements of the questions from the prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool (see Section 2.3 and Appendix E) was analysed for effects of the ‘background’ variables listed above. For full details of data analysis see Appendix G.1. 2.5.3 Results For complete results section see Appendix G.2.

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment At ease with the environment (QBA grouping which included high content/relaxed and low uncomfortable/agitated/tense/frustrated) was scored lower for Asian elephants, and for elephants which had a calf or young juvenile in the group. Younger elephants were rated as more Playful; however there was also a small increase in the Playful rating for each year the elephant had been at the zoo. Elephants were rated as more Wary if they had also had an acute health problem in the previous 12 months.

Daytime behaviour Questions The grouping of questions termed Dependence on routine was associated with age, foot health and gait scores. Older elephants and those with higher foot or gait scores (indicating poorer foot health or poorer gait) were more likely to score highly on this question group. The question grouping termed Engaging positively with the social and physical environment was higher for Asian elephants than Africans. Elephants were more likely to be scored as performing stereotypy more frequently if:  they had higher gait scores (meaning poor or problematic gaits)  they were not housed with related herd members  elephants were Asian rather than African  elephants were wild-caught

Night-time observations Elephants with higher BCSs and higher gait scores (meaning poorer gait) were seen lying for a larger proportion of time each night; i.e. a greater number of the observed behaviours throughout the night were likely to be of lying rest. The length of the single longest lying bout was likely to higher if:  elephants had health problems  they were older  they had a higher BCS  had higher foot score (indicating poorer foot health)

Results are summarised in Table 9.

22

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Table 9: Summary of the individual factors and the measure(s) they affect in the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool Question Section Measure or Group of Elephants with Higher Measures Scores  African elephants At ease with the 1  had no calf or young environment juvenile in the group  younger elephant A: Qualitative Behavioural  time at zoo (small Playful Assessment increase with each year elephant had been at the zoo)  had acute health Wary problem last 12 months  older elephants  higher foot score (poor Dependence on routine2 foot health)  higher gait score (poorer gait) Engaging positively with  Asian elephants the social and physical B: Daytime Observations environment3  higher gait score (poorer gait)  not housed with related Perform stereotypies herd members  Asian elephants  wild-caught  higher Body Condition Score Number of lying rest bouts  higher gait score (poorer gait) Section C: Night time  health problems Observations  older Length of longest lying  higher Body Condition rest bout Score  higher foot score (poorer foot health) Composite measure groupings: 1 Content, Relaxed, not Uncomfortable, not Agitated, not Tense and not Frustrated 2 Feeding, Feeding at scheduled time only, Waiting for scheduled events, and not Playing with others 3 Wallowing, Interactions with environment and Affiliative behaviour 2.5.4 Discussion Summary: From these results it is clear that an elephant’s background and health status can affect various welfare measures. It is essential to consider these individual differences in order to accurately interpret the results of the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool between individual elephants.

23

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

These are important results both for understanding the impact of each elephant’s health and history on the welfare measures contained in the welfare tool, and understanding how the welfare tool proposed might be individualised based on elephant background.

One behaviour which may need to be very carefully considered as a welfare indicator is lying rest. It had been assumed that longer bouts of lying rest were indicative of better welfare. Whilst it is probable that a complete lack of lying rest is negative, longer uninterrupted bouts of lying rest might also be an indicator of poor welfare since this was associated with health problems, and higher foot and gait scores (meaning poorer foot health and poorer gaits). Lying rest is also an age- dependent behaviour. If this is to be used as a comparative welfare measure it will be important in the future to collect data on the length and proportion of sleep that occurs in healthy elephants at each age.

The welfare tool was not able to reliably assess demeanour relating to the adjective ‘depressed’, or the adjective ‘attentive’, which was assumed to be scoring the other end of a related dimension. There is emerging evidence that assessment of this aspect of demeanour is important for assessing welfare. Horses that displayed a state of withdrawal and inactivity (which was likened to depression in humans), scored lower on other measures of welfare, including a greater likelihood that they would exhibit stereotypies [51]. Future work could be undertaken to identify other approaches to assess this dimension. It is possible that use of alternative adjectives, such as ‘dull’ or ‘listless’ might be more reliable; results from research on use of QBA for the assessment of sheep welfare suggested that these terms were reliable between assessors [52].

Future research is needed to gather data on a larger number of elephants to further elaborate the interaction of an elephant’s background with the different components of the Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool.

2.6 Produce individual elephant behavioural welfare monitoring tool with accompanying handbook A detailed, rigorous analysis was undertaken of the welfare measures in the prototype tool. Those measures which met the minimum threshold for validity and reliability were selected for inclusion in the final tool (see Section 2.4, Table 8, and Appendix F). A range of differences in individual elephant background and health history were identified which can have an impact on the welfare measures (see Section 2.5, Table 9, and Appendix G); these must be considered when interpreting the welfare assessment scores which result from the tool. A final version of the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Monitoring Tool was developed (see Appendix I), and an accompanying, user-friendly instruction Handbook was also prepared (see Appendix H).

A spreadsheet was developed for use in interpreting the scores recorded by users of the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool. Once users enter all of their data recorded from the tool, composite welfare scores are automatically calculated by the spreadsheet, as well as a pie chart of night time activity based on the recorded observations of the keepers from viewing the video footage. One

24

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

spreadsheet will be produced for each elephant, each time the tool is used. Users are instructed to use the Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool on a quarterly basis, and to email the completed spreadsheets to the Elephant Welfare Group. Instructions for completion and use of the spreadsheet were included in the user Handbook for the tool.

25

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

3. WORK PACKAGE 2: REVIEW EXISTING SSSMZP GUIDELINES FOR ELEPHANTS IN CAPTIVITY Summary of Work Package 2

This work package involved an evidence-based review of the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) guidelines for elephants. This involved:

1. Identifying physical and social resources important to elephants from two sources:  Rapid review of the literature (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature)  Teleconferences held with stakeholders

2. Ranking of these identified resources, in terms of their importance to captive elephants, by attendees of a stakeholder workshop (attended by keepers, managers and veterinarians from 11 UK and Irish elephant-holding zoos).

3. Review of SSSMZP guidelines using all evidence gathered (from the two literature reviews, from the teleconferences, and from the rankings from the stakeholder workshop) by the External Advisory Panel (EAP).

4. Production of a summary table highlighting areas where the evidence supports, or suggests potential changes which could be made to, the current SSSMZP guidelines for elephants.

3.1 Complete a rapid review of literature on resources of importance to elephants Summary: Publications discussing physical and social resources important for captive elephants were identified and reviewed. Additional literature was also reviewed on wild elephants. This involved:

 A rapid review of peer-reviewed literature using specific search methods and detailed criteria of inclusion and appraisal; of 10,000 possible publications, 28 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated.  Identification and brief review of grey and other literature (88 papers) to identify additional resources of importance.

3.1.1 Introduction It was important to be as inclusive as possible, to identify resources important to elephants in captivity. A careful review was initially performed, to first identify better- studied resources important to elephant welfare. In addition, because few studies have scientifically assessed resources of importance to captive elephants, information from grey literature, and from studies of wild elephants, was also considered. This was done to identify additional potential resources, to gain a more complete assessment of the resources which are of value to captive elephants. Welfare of captive elephants is frequently assessed through comparisons with wild elephants.

26

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

The literature review included two components: (1) a repeatable search and appraisal of peer-reviewed literature using systematic and repeatable search methods and detailed criteria of inclusion and appraisal, and (2) a less detailed review of grey literature, literature on wild elephants, and additional peer-reviewed literature, which did not meet the inclusion criteria but was deemed by the Project Team and the project’s External Advisory Panel to be relevant.

3.1.2 Methods 3.1.2.1 Rapid, detailed literature review and evaluation Search methods

Published studies were identified from a number of databases, using a range of search terms relating to resources of importance to captive elephants. Details of the search are listed below in Table 10.

Table 10: Details of database search for literature on resources of importance

to captive elephants Databases Fields searched Terms included searched Scopus Titles ‘elephant’, ‘Elephantidae’, ‘Loxodonta’, Web of Knowledge* Keywords ‘Elephas’, ‘enrichment’, ‘husbandry’, Ovid** Abstracts ‘housing’, ‘behav*’, ‘stress,’ ‘requirements’, ‘needs’, ‘standards’, ‘activity’, ‘movement’, ‘communication’, ‘health’, ‘anticipatory’, ‘eating’, ‘living conditions’, ‘grooming’, ‘rest’, ‘antagonis*’, ‘play’, ‘repetiti*’, ‘posture’, ‘group size’, ‘learning’, 'hous*', 'group*', 'communicat*', 'eat*','living*', 'groom', 'foot', 'condition', 'physical', 'social', 'environ*', 'management', 'enclosure', 'feet', 'limb*', 'digit*', 'sole*', 'treading', 'body' *Web of Knowledge included: Core Collection, Biosis Citation Index, Biosis Previews, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, Medline, Zoological Records (2007 – present) ** Ovid included: CAB Abstracts, Psycinfo, Zoological Records (1978-2007)

Inclusion criteria Only publications which met the following criteria were included in the critical review:

1. Captive elephants were the main focus of the investigation 2. The publication contained at least two of the search terms in the abstract 3. The publication was available to the authors in full 4. The publication was in a peer-reviewed journal 5. The publication contained research on the impact of the social or physical environment on elephant behaviour or welfare

27

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

6. The publication was in English.

Exclusion criteria Retrospective studies assessing the population reproductive or morbidity (frequency of disease) rates were excluded. 3.1.2.2 Grey and other literature reviewed Additional relevant literature was identified using a number of different approaches. This included literature identified:  in the repeatable database search, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria for the critical appraisal (such as reviews, books, and conference proceedings)  using internet searches of key terms and snowballing by searching the references lists of relevant literature  by members of the External Advisory Panel  by BIAZA or elephant holding zoos following an email request (including unpublished zoo studies)

The literature identified included non-peer-reviewed papers in journal articles, books, and unpublished zoo studies, as well as some specific literature on resources for wild elephants. 3.1.3 Results Initial searches yielded ~10,000 records, of which 28 publications met the inclusion

criteria and were critically reviewed.

Critical appraisal As was described for the critical appraisal of measures of welfare, each article which met the inclusion criteria was critically reviewed to ascertain further details about the study and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the work. The critical appraisal consisted of a series of questions relating to the sample population, the study design, the reliability and validity of the paper, the sampling technique, the method of assessing welfare, and statistics used. Details from the critical appraisal were put into a large table for ease of reference, and resources were grouped according to whether they were related to: (1) enclosures (see Appendix Table J.1), (2) social resources, (see Appendix Table J.2), or (3) enrichment and food (see Appendix Table J.3).

3.1.2.2 Grey and other literature reviewed Other literature was identified by the Project Team, and by members of the External Advisory Panel. This included the following:  peer-reviewed literature which did not meet the inclusion criteria (8 papers)  grey literature (49 documents)  specific literature on wild elephants (31 documents).

Details summarising the review of this literature were put into a large table for ease of reference, and resources were grouped according to whether they were related to:

28

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

(1) enclosures (see Appendix Table J.4), (2) social resources, (see Appendix Table J.5), or (3) enrichment and food (see Appendix Table J.6)

3.1.4 Discussion Literature pertaining to physical and social resources of importance to captive elephants was identified and reviewed. The literature review included two components:

(1) a repeatable search and appraisal of peer-reviewed literature using systematic and repeatable search methods and detailed criteria of inclusion and appraisal. Initial searches yielded ~10,000 records, of which 28 publications met the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed.

(2) a less detailed review of grey literature (49 papers), and additional peer-reviewed literature which did not meet the inclusion criteria but was deemed relevant by the Project Team and the project’s External Advisory Panel (8 papers). Additional, some key papers on wild elephants (31 papers) were also reviewed. Ninety-four documents were identified and reviewed.

3.2 Gather stakeholder opinion to identify priorities for resources for captive elephants 3.2.1 Teleconferences Summary: During the stakeholder teleconferences previously described (see Section 2.2), participants were asked a set of questions which centred on features of the environment that are important to elephants. Participants were asked to describe the ideal elephant exhibit, including indoor and outdoor exhibits, and any environmental enrichment that is beneficial for elephants. A complete list of resources identified by participants can be found in the Appendix Table K.1. . 3.2.1.1 Methods The focus group discussions for this Work Package were held as part of the teleconferences described in Section 2.2. For details on the methods used, see Section 2.2.2. 3.2.1.2 Results Focus group participants identified a range of resources in the physical and social environment of captive elephants which they felt were important for their welfare. Physical environment In summary, participants suggested the following considerations were important for physical features:  encourage natural behaviours (e.g. foraging)  be complex  encourage exercise (e.g. stretching to reach food, or moving around enclosure, bathe in pool)  for substrate: be comfortable for sleep, used for dust bathing, good for feet (e.g. sand for all of these), varied

29

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

 varied terrain: interesting, encourage exercise, provide visual barriers  encourage both social interaction and exercise (mud wallows, pools).

Participants consistently identified features of the physical environment which allowed or encouraged the expression of natural behaviours by captive elephants. Other important considerations were providing complexity in the environment, and encouraging exercise. Some features could also encourage social interactions among the elephants.

Methods of food presentation were felt to be important, particularly those methods that encouraged natural behaviours, such as provision of browse to encourage foraging behaviour, and feeding some food from a height to encourage elephants to stretch to reach it.

Provision of appropriate substrate was thought to be important for welfare, and most participants advocated the use of sand, particularly indoors, to provide a comfortable substrate for dust bathing and for sleeping. Sand was felt to be preferable to concrete, both for comfort and for improved foot health. Some participants also commented on the benefits of providing a variety of substrates to add complexity to the captive environment.

Varied terrain was described as an important feature for welfare, with undulations in terrain allowing elephants the opportunity for physical exercise and providing visual barriers.

Mud wallows, water features (such as pools, sprinklers or waterfalls) and scratching or rubbing posts were often identified as resources which encouraged elephants to express natural behaviours.

Other potential welfare benefits of mud wallows and pools included the opportunity for social interaction and physical exercise. Participants commented on observing social interactions, such as play, around mud wallows and pools, as well as highlighting the physical benefits of providing deep water in which elephants could swim. Social environment In summary features of the social environment that were considered to influence welfare included:  relatedness  group size  social compatibility (more important than group size)  ideal herd: multigenerational family group

A multigenerational family group was seen as the ideal social group type for good welfare, mirroring the social groups that occur in wild populations. Welfare benefits of housing elephants in family groups included the opportunity for natural social interaction, close social bonds between individuals, and opportunities for appropriate learning and development, especially in young elephants.

30

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Although some participants believed that the size of a social group was important for welfare, all participants indicated the importance of social compatibility in the group. Some felt that the compatibility of a social group was more important than the number of elephants in the group. Indeed, some participants highlighted the danger of a recommended group size, which might encourage facilities to house incompatible elephants together to reach the target number, but compromise welfare as a result. Other environmental features In summary, these additional environmental features were identified:  greater choice and control  24 hour access to resources (indoor/outdoor and food)  large space  complexity of environment  features to encourage movement.

Some participants suggested that in order to enable greater choice and control for the elephants, the doors of the indoor enclosure should be left open throughout the day and night, so that elephants could choose whether to use the indoor or outdoor environment. Alternatively, it was suggested that if facilities permit, zoos might provide the same resources in indoor enclosures that are available in outdoor enclosures; however, it was recognised that some features (e.g. deep pools, waterfalls, large areas for grazing) would be difficult to provide indoors.

Participants pointed out the importance of providing access to feeding opportunities throughout the day and night. Although timed feeders can allow elephants to feed overnight in the absence of keepers, it was suggested that they should be used with caution, in order to avoid interrupting natural sleeping patterns.

Space and complexity were also identified as important features of the environment. Although there was strong agreement by participants that larger enclosures were preferable to smaller ones, there was no consensus on what size would be sufficient. Numerous participants mentioned that, regardless of size, the complexity of an enclosure and the resources within it were vital. Furthermore, whatever the size of the space available, many participants commented that it was important to have features in the environment which encouraged the elephants to move throughout the enclosure.

When describing their ideal elephant exhibit, some participants indicated that they would like to provide live trees or woodland for captive elephants, or experiment with mixed species exhibits to provide additional complexity. Ideas for mixed species exhibits included antelopes such as blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis), and even birds or primates. One particularly interesting idea for an ideal elephant exhibit involved making use of the entire zoo, and having corridors within the zoo that would be used by the elephants. 3.2.1.3 Discussion Participants identified a number of features of the physical and social environments which were important for good captive elephant welfare. Participants described how provision of a large and complex environment was needed for encouraging natural

31

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

behaviours and exercise, though there was uncertainty as to what size enclosure would be sufficient. Mud wallows, water features, and natural substrates (e.g. sand indoors, soil/grass outdoors) were features of the physical environment often mentioned. Multigenerational family herds were described as an ideal, and participants felt that social compatibility was more important than a specific group size. Environments which provide greater choice and control (such as 24 hour access to indoor and outdoor resources) were frequently identified as important for welfare.

The full list of resources identified by participating stakeholders as being important to captive elephant welfare are list in the Appendix Table K.1. 3.2.2 Stakeholder workshop on resources of importance to elephants Summary: A total of 98 physical and social resources for captive elephants were identified from the literature, or by stakeholders in focus group discussions (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1; and Appendix L). A workshop was held with 29 stakeholders, at which they were asked to rank each of these resources on a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being unimportant, and 10 being most essential). Prioritised lists of resources (one for resources related to ‘Enclosures’, one for ‘Feeding and Enrichment’ resources, and one for ‘Social’ resources) were developed based on participants’ rankings. 3.2.2.1 Methods On 17 December, 2014, a workshop was held at West Midlands Safari Park, with attendees from 11 UK elephant-holding zoos, the Defra External Expert Advisors, members of the Project Team and the Expert Advisory Panel, and a number of invited speakers (see Appendix M for workshop agenda, and Appendix N for list of attendees). Speakers gave presentations on key aspects of resources important to elephants in wild and captive environments. Following these presentations, participants were divided into six groups each containing 5-6 people, along with a facilitator.

A range of physical and social resources had been identified: (1) from the reviewed literature, and (2) by stakeholders during the teleconferences (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1, and Appendix L). Stakeholders were presented with, and asked to rate the importance of, each of these previously identified key resources. For those physical resources which could be located either indoors or outdoors, the resources were presented twice to each group for ranking: once as an indoor resource, and once as an outdoor resource. Each group was asked to rate the level of importance of each of the resources, as ‘essential’, ‘important’, ‘nice to have’ or ‘not important’. Participants were informed that 1 was unimportant, 2-4: ‘nice to have’; 5 – 7: ‘important’, 8-10: ‘essential’ (see Figure 1).

32

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Figure 1: Resource ranking scale presented to workshop participants

Each group was asked to consider and then quickly agree on the ranking of each resource. If they could not agree, everybody’s ranking (with caveats or comments) was written on the back of the card, and it was placed to one side. 3.2.2.2 Results Below are the resources which had a mean rank of ‘essential’ (8-10), for each of the three groups of resources, Social (Table 11), Feeding & Enrichment (Table 12) and Enclosures (Table 13). For the physical resources (Tables 12 and 13), there is a column indicating whether the resource is located indoors or outdoors.

Table 11: Social resources: ‘essential’ Mean Score Resource Ranking Range Calves stay in maternal group 10.0 10 Bulls with females and young 9.2 7-10 Auditory and visual access to the whole herd at night 9.0 4-10 Compatible group (affiliative behaviour shown, little 9.0 7-10 aggression) Cows/young not lone housed 9.0 7-10 Herd with a wide range of ages 9.0 7-10 Physical access to the whole herd at night 8.8 4-10 Auditory and visual access to other elephants at night 8.8 4-10 Physical access to other elephants at night 8.8 4-10 Bull lone housed with auditory, visual or olfactory 8.6 4-10 communication with other elephants Bulls with females and bulls 8.4 6-10

Table 12: Enrichment & feeding resources: ‘essential’ Indoor/ Resources Outdoor Mean Range Browse provided daily O 10.0 10 Browse provided daily I 10.0 10 Food provided in such a manner which provides I 10.0 10 intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders,

33

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

hidden treats, etc.)

Trees/branches O 10.0 10 Variety of food and ways of feeding O 10.0 10 Food distributed throughout the day O 9.7 8-10 Food distributed throughout the day I 9.7 8-10 Some food placed high up so that elephants O 9.7 9-10 must stretch to reach it Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise I 9.5 8-10 Food provided in such a manner which provides O 9.3 8-10 intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise O 9.3 7-10 Variety of food and ways of feeding I 9.0 7-10 Regular provision of novel enrichment O 8.8 8-10 Toys, e.g. tyres I 8.6 5-10 Large logs O 8.3 5-10 Large logs I 8.2 5-10

Table 13: Enclosure resources: ‘essential’ Indoor/ Resources Outdoor Mean Range Not chained for long periods (e.g. overnight) I 10.0 10 Outdoor space allowance to meet current O 10.0 10 minimum requirements (500 sqm/elephant) Complex environments O 9.8 9-10 Natural light indoors I 9.8 9-10 Complex environments I 9.7 8-10 Places to hide from other individuals (i.e. visual O 9.6 9-10 barriers, different areas) Furniture which enables scratching/rubbing I 9.5 8-10 More than one entrance/exit between I 9.5 7-10 houses/paddocks Places to hide from other individuals (i.e. visual I 9.0 6-10 barriers, different areas) Water in the form of a deep pool with a shallow O 9.0 7-10 entrance Variety of substrates I 8.8 7-10 Furniture which encourages stretching/climbing I 8.7 6-10 Good artificial lighting I 8.7 5-10 Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 in warmer O 8.6 4-10 months Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 year round O 8.5 6-10 Variety of substrates O 8.5 1-10 Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) I 8.3 7-9

34

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 in warmer I 8.2 4-10 months Indoor space allowance to meet current I 8.2 1-10 minimum requirements (50 sqm/elephant) Activities not human led (no or few scheduled I 8.0 4-10 events) Furniture which enables scratching/rubbing O 8.0 1-10 More than one entrance/exit between O 8.0 1-10 houses/paddocks Places to hide from public (i.e. visual barriers, O 8.0 3-10 different areas) Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) O 8.0 1-10

The detailed breakdown of all the ranked resources are given in the Appendices, Tables O.1 (Social resources), O.2 (Enclosures) and O.3 (Feeding & Enrichment).

Poor Consensus Resources There were certain resources for which at least two of the six groups could not agree on a ranking amongst them. These resources, and the range of ranking values assigned for these (for those groups that did provide rankings), along with comments, are indicated with an asterisk, and were written in red font in the tables. 3.2.2.3 Discussion In summary, of the 98 resources considered, fifty-one were ranked by participants as ‘essential’ (ranked between 8-10 on the 1-10 scale) for captive elephant welfare.

The ‘social’ resources which were most highly ranked during the workshop support the conclusions previously identified from the teleconferences. Again, there was strong support for multi-generational family groups, providing a wide range of ages, housed together day and night, as the ideal. Stakeholders at the workshop also emphasised the importance of herd compatibility, both in their rankings and in their written comments (see Appendix Table O.1). In addition, there was strong support from these rankings for bulls to be housed with other elephants, and the most highly ranked of these options was bulls housed with females and young. Both in the teleconferences and at the workshop, keepers highlighted the importance of bulls not being lone-housed, provided the bull has the option of getting away from the other elephant if he chooses, and vice versa.

Participants ranked 16 food and enrichment-related resources as 'essential', which again agreed with conclusions from the teleconferences. In particular, provision of daily browse, and of a variety of food and food presentation were highly ranked. Another key resource identified was provision of food throughout the day; it was clear that stakeholders felt this was an essential aspect of management for good welfare. Scatter feeds and provision of food at a height (to encourage stretching), were both advocated to encourage more exercise. Environmental enrichment was also considered essential to elephant welfare.

Stakeholders identified 24 enclosure and management related resources as 'essential'. Once more, the essential resources identified at the workshop were in strong agreement with the resources identified in the focus groups. Participants

35

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

advocated complex environments with a variety of substrates and terrain, and provision of natural lighting indoors. They believed enclosures should contain a deep pool, and should also provide places where elephants can hide or get away from other elephants should they choose to do so. Participants also felt that it was essential that elephants should not be chained for long periods (unfortunately, due to time constraints, it was not possible to discuss what would comprise a 'long period'). Participants also indicated that they felt it was essential that, as much as possible, activities should not be human-led, and that elephants should have free access between indoor and outdoor enclosures year round (or at least during the warmer months); this underscores the desire to give elephants as much choice as possible in what they are doing. As has been previously discussed, individual choice has been identified as an important component of animal welfare.

3.3 Compare published evidence and stakeholder opinion with SSSMZP guidelines Summary: Evidence was collected on resources important to captive elephants from: the review of the literature (see sections 3.1, and Appendix J,), from stakeholder focus group teleconferences (see section 3.2.1, and Appendix Table K.1), and from the resource ranking at the stakeholder workshop (see Section 3.2.2 and Appendix O). The project’s External Advisory Panel (EAP), and the Project Team, used this evidence to review the current Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) guidelines for elephants. In light of the available evidence, suggestions were made for revision of the current SSSMZP guidelines. 3.3.1 Introduction The Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) specifies minimum standards that zoos in England are required to meet. The aim of the second work package was to conduct an evidence-based review of the SSSMZP guidelines for elephants. 3.3.2 Methods Evidence was collected during the project on resource of importance to elephants in captivity. This evidence included: 1. Critical review of the literature (section 3.1, and Appendix Tables J.1, J.2 and J.3) 2. Less detailed review of the grey literature and review/opinion papers (section 3.1, and Appendix Tables J.4, J.5 and J.6) 3. Stakeholder focus group teleconferences (section 3.2.1 and Appendix K) 4. Ranked resources from the stakeholder workshop (section 3.2.2 and Appendix O)

The project's External Advisory Panel (EAP) and the Project Team reviewed the current SSSMZP guidelines for elephants. In light of the resources of importance identified during the project, and the weight of evidence for each resource, suggestions were made for revisions to the current SSSMZP guidelines.

36

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

3.3.3 Results The suggestions and comments from the project’s EAP and the Project Team, pertaining to the SSSMZP guidelines for elephants, are summarised in Table 14.

The left-most column lists the current SSSMZP guidelines. The next column contains comments relating to particular aspects of the guidelines, including suggested changes.

The ‘Identified Resources’ give an overall description of the available evidence in relation to the current guidelines, and to the comments or suggestions. In many cases, phrases describing specific resources, as identified in the literature and the stakeholder focus group teleconferences (see Appendix L), were used in this column. These are listed in quotation marks to identify them more clearly.

The ‘Evidence’ column list the available evidence relating to the suggestions or identified resources. Four types of evidence are given: 1) ‘Crit lit.’ lists the critically appraised literature from the rapid review; 2) ‘Grey lit.’ is the grey literature, or other relevant peer reviewed literature that did not meet inclusion criteria for the appraised literature; 3) ‘Wild lit.’ is the literature on wild African or Asian elephants, and; 4) ‘WS rank’ is the mean rank for the resource assigned by stakeholders at the project workshop. In the three columns containing references to the literature (‘Crit lit’, ‘Grey lit.’ and ‘Wild lit.’), the numbers listed in column indicate number of documents identified in the literature which are relevant to the guideline; the citations in brackets list the specific papers.

Blue shading was used on the table to group the topics and make the table easier to read. Specific research needs were identified for a number of the topics pertaining to the guidelines; these are in red font in the table.

37

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Table 14: Evidence-based review of SSSMZP elephant guidelines Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 8.8.1 Elephants are long-lived, highly intelligent Given the reproductive biology and the 6 [53-58] animals with large natural ranges and a lifespan of elephants, complex social life. Meeting their needs in recommend that zoos should plan for captivity is challenging. These standards should space and facilities for at least 30 years. help inspectors and others in assessing the extent to which these welfare needs are being met, and in particular, in assessing the welfare needs of individual elephants and the measures being taken to secure good elephant welfare. 8.8.2 Inspectors, local authorities and zoos No change recommended should also consult the current Management Guidelines for the Welfare of Zoo Animals: Elephants (BIAZA). Elephant-keeping zoos must engage constructively with the Elephant Welfare Group (administered by BIAZA), which may include assisting with monitoring and recording welfare and other parameters, to help the Group monitor progress in the national herd. Social structure No change recommended 8.8.3 African and Asian elephants should never be mixed in the same social grouping. Cows Support for current guidelines 'Related herds' 1[59] 4[21, 60- 7.3 8.8.4 Elephants should be kept in stable, female 62] groups, preferably of related animals. Matriarchal ‘Calves stay in 3 [49, 59, 11 [61, 10 herds should be the norm. However zoos 63] 64-73] which need to keep herds of unrelated, non- maternal group’ 'Herd with a wide range 4[61, 74- 9.0 productive, older or problem elephants should 76] also comply with these Standards. of ages'

38

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank Wild African elephant literature: female 12 [53, calves in natal group throughout their 77-87] lives Important risk factor for lower longevity in 1 [65] zoo elephants is number of times elephant is moved to a different facility 8.8.5 Female elephants must have social Cows must have the opportunity for ’Physical access to 2 [88, 89] 3 [76, 85, 8.8 contact with other elephants at all times. social contact with at least one other other elephants at 90] Ideally a group should contain at least four elephant at all times and ideally physical night’ cows over two years old, and have unrestricted contact; at a minimum they should have ’Physical access to 1 [91] 8.8 access to each other not less than 16 hours in the opportunity for physical contact whole herd at night’ any 24 hour period. The routine and prolonged whenever keepers are present. 'Cows/calves not lone 4 [59, 92- 12 [60, 9.0 separation of cows is unacceptable and zoos housed' 94] 64, 66, 68, should keep records of such periods, the They must also all have the option to get 71-73, 75, reasons for this separation, the action being away from other elephants if so desired, 76, 95-97] taken to re-introduce these elephants and the through use of space or physical barriers timeframe for doing so. Such records should in the enclosure (see sections 8.8.9 and be made available to zoo inspectors upon 8.8.10 regarding physical barriers and request. space in enclosures). Compatibility, especially for unrelated ‘Compatible groups’ 2 .[59, 98] 4 [21, 76, 9.0 females, is much more important than 90, 99] absolute number of adult females present (mentioned by stakeholders repeatedly, at workshop and in teleconferences). Suggest minimum should be 2 adult ‘2+ adults females’ 1 [98] cows; ideally should have more, but only 'Minimum group size 3- 1 [24] 5 [21, 68, if they are socially compatible. 5 cows' 96, 99, 100]

More research needed to understand issues relating to social compatibility Bulls Suggest that bulls must be given the ’Physical access to 2 [88, 89] 3 [76, 85, 8.8

39

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 8.8.6 Bull elephants can be difficult to manage option to be with other elephants, if they other elephants at 90] (particularly in musth) and are not always choose to do so, whenever possible; they night’ compatible with cows. Provision must be must also have the option of separation if ’Physical access to 1 [91] 8,8 made for them to be separated from cows and they choose (see sections 8.8.9 and whole herd at night’ other bulls when necessary, however bulls are 8.8.10 regarding physical barriers and 'Bulls with females and 9.2 also highly social and it is not acceptable to space in enclosures). young' subject them to prolonged physical and social 'Bulls with females and 1 [101] 8.4 isolation from other elephants. Therefore they Suggest that bulls are either: bulls' should be run with the herd whenever possible. (1) housed so they can mix regularly with ’Mixed sexes herd’ 4 [73, 75, 7.8 family herd, ideally with another bull 99, 102] A profile should be drawn up for each bull and present, to facilitate social learning(1 Wild African elephant 9 [54, 55, should be reviewed (in combination with a risk older bull, 1 younger) OR literature : social 57, 79, 85- assessment) at least every six months. A (2) are kept separately in a bachelor herd learning, bull social 87, 103, management regime should be drawn up and with other bulls of varying ages. mixing with family 104] modified in the light of the development of the herds elephant's character. All collections keeping ' Bulls in bachelor 1 [105] 1 [21] 7.6 bulls should have the facility to carry out any herds' essential veterinary procedure in such a way ' Herd with a wide 4 [61, 74- 9.0 that is safe for all staff and the elephant range of ages' 76] concerned (e.g. Elephant Restraint Device). All Wild African elephant 3 [103, collections keeping bulls must ensure that staff lit.: bachelor herds, 104, 106] are adequately trained to work with bulls (see social learning among current BIAZA Guidelines). bulls, range of ages Suggest avoid repeated or frequent Important risk factor for 1 [65] movement of bulls between facilities. lower longevity in zoo elephants is number of times elephant is moved to a different facility

40

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 8.8.7 Calves have a long learning period and Suggest each bull should also stay in the ‘Calves stay in 3 [49, 59, 11 [61, 10 must be brought up in a matriarchal group. maternal herd, until puberty (unless he is maternal group’ 63] 64-73] Female elephants must learn calf care and involved in excessive aggressive benefit from the presence of a young animal. behaviour), as this is the age at which Cows should generally stay with their maternal they would naturally leave (to avoid herd, while bulls may need to be removed if inbreeding). See comments on section ' Herd with a wide 4 [61, 74- 9.0 their presence is no longer tolerated. The age 8.8.6 for discussion of adult bulls in range of ages' 76] will vary with individuals, herd structure and family or bachelor herds. facilities. The social development of young bulls is also increasingly recognised as being very important, benefiting from the presence of Wild African elephant 9 [54, 55, older, adult males; and this must not be literature : social 57, 79, 85- overlooked. learning, bull social 87, 103, mixing with family 104] herds Enclosures No change recommended ‘Free access 2 [92, 6 [64, 74, 8.5 8.8.8 Indoor and outdoor accommodation must indoors/outdoors 24/7 107] 76, 102, be provided and other than in exceptional year round’ 108, 109] weather conditions, elephants should have access to both over a 24 hour period and be able to choose where they spend their time. 8.8.9 The indoor and outdoor environment Elephants need variety in their Environment to 2 [88, 110] should be positively challenging and stimulating environments, and both indoor and encourage natural to the animals and contain devices and outdoor enclosures should have variety behaviour structures which enrich the environment and and complexity. ‘Variety of terrain’ 8 [61, 69, 8.3 encourage natural behaviour including, for 70, 99, 100, example moving around, dust bathing, bathing, 102, 111, scratching, digging and exploration. 112] ‘Complex 13 [21, 9.8 environments’ 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74,

41

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 76, 96, 99, 100, 102, 113] Suggest it is also essential that there are ‘Places to hide from 1 [105] 5 [21, 74, 9.6 visual barriers provided, and sufficient other individuals’ 99, 100, space, both inside and outside, to permit 102] elephants to get away from one another ‘More than one 1 [48] 9.5 if they choose to do so. entrance/exit between indoors, houses/paddocks’ 8.0 outdoors 8.8.10 Indoor enclosures should provide a It was the strong opinion of stakeholders ‘Indoor space 2 [73, 76] 7.6 minimum of 200 sq.m for four (or fewer) from the workshop, and the EAP, that allowance double animals and should increase by 80 sq.m for this is too small, and should be at least current minimum each additional animal over two years old. doubled requirements’ Separation and isolation facilities (ie separate pens) must be provided for veterinary and There is no evidence on how much behaviour management purposes. The indoor additional space is needed per elephant stall size for a bull must be at least 80 sq.m and (it was felt by the EP that this is too should take into account that a mature bull small). can reach vertically up to six metres. Ceilings, It was strongly felt by the EAP that plumbing and electrical installations etc must current recommended space for the bull be out of reach. is too small, but there is no evidence at all on the minimum space required indoors for a bull. More research is needed on indoor space requirements for cows, bulls, mixed groups, family herds, calves 8.8.11 Indoor enclosures must allow for No change recommended elephants to move freely as a group, turn and lie down. The enclosures must be well ventilated but at low velocity to avoid draughts and must be well lit, preferably with natural

42

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank sky-lights and the ability to fade the lighting to minimise disturbance to the elephants. The inside temperature should be no less than 16C with an area able to be maintained at 21C for sick or debilitated animals. 8.8.12 Concrete flooring for indoor enclosures Deep, fine sand, approximately 2 metres 'Sand' 1 [24] 10 [61, 7.7 can cause foot and joint problems for deep, is strongly recommended as the 66, 67, 90, elephants so enclosures should use primary indoor substrate, particularly in 99, 100, alternative substrates such as sand or the sleeping area, as it encourages 102, 111, woodchip. There is increasing evidence that natural behaviours important for good 112, 114] deep sand is the preferred substrate and is welfare, such as recumbent sleep. therefore recommended. Other flooring should While sand should comprise the majority 'Variety of substrates' 5 [61, 69, 8.8 be quick-drying, well-drained and able to be of the substrate present, if space permits, 99, 100, readily cleaned and disinfected. It should be a range of other manipulable natural 102] relatively smooth but not slippery and with a substrates (e.g. mud, clay, dust) could be degree of 'give' so that elephants can lie provided. down comfortably. Concrete, rubber or tile could be used for Concrete floor bad for 2 [110, a small treatment or training area. foot and joint health 115] Rubber floor 2 [110, 3 [61, 64, 6.6* 115] 100] *Stakeholder comment at workshop: better than concrete for training area, but rip it up 8.8.13 Outdoor enclosures must be as large as It was strongly felt by the EAP that the Only 1 study performed 1 [49] possible and encourage walking (and also current guidelines on additional space on space needs and exploration, foraging, social interaction and per elephant are insufficient, but there is space use by captive maintenance behaviours (e.g.dust-bathing). little evidence on this topic. Suggest zoos elephants; evidence The minimum size for eight animals (i.e. should plan to move towards a minimum indicates need at least females over two years) or fewer is 2,000 enclosure size of 2.3 hectares, for five or 2.3 ha for 5 adults to sq.m and another 200 sq.m added for every fewer sexually mature adults, for bull, display daily levels of

43

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank additional animal. Outdoor areas for bulls and cow, or mixed sex enclosures. There walking equivalent to cows should provide a minimum of 3,000 should be a plan to develop this if this some wild African sq.m. Enclosures must be flexible and allow amount of space is not already provided. elephants for separation where needed. 1% of wild space 1 [73] It is likely this figure should be larger for (if use smallest known mixed bull and cow groups, to allow them home range for African to get away from each other, but there is elephants [116], 1% no research at all on what the figure would = 14 ha); should be. Should equal home 1 [71] range in wild Consider home range sizes in the wild for Female African 1 [117] male and female African and Asian elephants: 14-8700 km2 elephants Female Asian 1 [86] elephants: 60- 650 km2

Male African elephants: 2 [118]; 157-342 km2; [119] 1300-2981 km2 Male Asian elephants: 1 [120] 170-320 km2 More research is urgently needed on minimum space requirements for captive elephants 8.8.14 The outdoor area must be protected from It is recommended that some of the 'Shelter from sun' 3 [67, 69, 7.7 extremes of sunlight, wind and rain i.e. sufficient outdoor shelter available should be 100] shelter areas must be provided. heated during winter months. Best done 'Shelter from wind' 1 [69] 7.3 if give free access between indoor and outdoor enclosures (don’t need a ‘Free access 2 [92, 6 [64, 74, 8.5 separate heated shelter) indoors/outdoors 24/7 107] 76, 102, year round’ 108, 109]

44

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 'Heated shelter in 1 [21] 7.3 winter' Little evidence on the impact of Pilot study found 1 [121] 6.0 ** environmental infrasound on elephants. environmental infrasound overlaps Research is needed to assess the frequency range used environmental infrasound to which zoo by elephants for elephants are exposed at different infrasonic facilities, and short and longer term communication. Effect impacts this may have on elephants, if unknown, but may be any. stressful.

**Stakeholder Workshop: poor consensus. All groups commented on the need for further research 8.8.15 Outside substrates must be primarily For outdoor substrates, recommend 'Earth/soil' 5 [24, 88, 6 [61, 66, 7.7 natural e.g. soil, sand or grass with good primarily soil or grass; may have some 93, 115, 67, 69, 100, drainage. A combination of an all-weather sand, mud or rocky areas. 122] 102] substrate (such as sand or hardstanding) and a ‘Grass provided for 1 [105] 1 [21] 6.7 softer substrate (sand or soil) is recommended grazing all day, all year to help promote foot pad and toenail wear. round’ ‘ Grass provided for 2 [99, 108] 7.0 grazing some time each day all year round’ 'Sand' 1 [24] 10 [61, 7.7 66, 67, 90, 99, 100, 102, 111,

45

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank 112, 114], 8.8.16 Elephants must be provided with the The pool must be deep enough for each ‘Water in the form of a 3 [61, 69, opportunity to bathe and enclosures should elephant to be able to submerge pool’ 90] incorporate a pool, dust baths and mud completely. ‘Water in the form of a 5 [66, 67, 7.2 wallows. A pool should be large enough to deep pool’ 73, 99, 100] accommodate the needs of all the animals. It Use of the pool must be monitored ‘Water in the form of a 1 [102] 9.0 must have gentle entry slopes with non-slip regularly (methods to be determined); if deep pool with a surfaces. elephants are not using the pool, then shallow entrance’ the design of the pool should be changed to encourage its use (e.g. heated, change in entrance). Recommend a variety of other forms of ‘Water in the form of a 6 [67, 68, 7.5 water in the enclosure; these can wallow’ 90, 99, 100, include: wallows, a waterfall, and/or a 112] sprinkler ‘Water in the form of 2 [67, waterfall’ 100] ‘Water in the form of a 2 [67, sprinkler/shower’ 100] Consideration of provision of water indoors should be reviewed in light of findings of indoor/outdoor enclosure usage by the elephants (research needed at each zoo on enclosure usage). If the elephants are spending the majority of their time indoors, then water features (e.g. a pool, sprinkler, or other) are needed indoors.

Further research is needed on indoor pool and water usage (determine if different at different zoos). For dust bathing, need sand or soil in

46

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank enclosure (see evidence under 8.8.15 above) 8.8.17-8.8.20 Boundaries Not reviewed, section pertains to secure and safe physical design 8.8.21 Feeding should match natural feeding Evidence on diet composition was not activity as much as possible, where browse reviewed in terms of nutritional value, but accounts for the majority of the diet. rather diet provision was assessed in Elephant diet should be high in fibre and low terms of its effects on behaviour. in nutrients with browse and hay comprising at least 70% and the remaining 30% comprising pellets and other foodstuffs.

8.8.22 Sufficient browse should be available to Food should be varied in its presentation. ‘Food distributed 3 [92, 5 [21, 61, 9.7 all elephants in sufficient quantities to allow It should be available at all times (day throughout the day’ 123, 124] 76, 108, foraging and feeding to occupy at least 16 hours and night), and food should be placed 125] a day. It must be provided every day and throughout the exhibit to avoid ‘Variety of food and 2 [24, 126] 9 [61, 67, 10 distributed around the enclosure to encourage competition for access to food and to ways of feeding’ 74, 99, 102, outdoors walking. Forage must be of appropriate quality encourage movement. This may also 127-130] 9.0 and analysed by appropriate laboratories to include use of mechanical feeders or indoors ensure it remains within nutritional guidelines. other devices to deliver food at ‘Food provided through 1 [124] 1 [67] 7.3 Elephants should be fed in small amounts, unpredictable times throughout the day. mechanical feeders at repeatedly throughout the day and in the unpredictable times’ evening and early morning. There must also be Food should encourage a full range of ‘Browse provided daily’ 4 [93, 10 [61, 10 a means of providing food during the night. natural foraging behaviour. This would 105, 131, 67, 69, 76, include scatter feeds to encourage 132] 90, 99, 100, movement throughout the enclosure, 108, 133, provision of browse to encourage 134] foraging, some food placed up high (so ‘Grass provided for 1 [105] 1 [21] 6.7 must stretch to reach it), and access to grazing all day, all year grass for grazing. round’ ‘ Grass provided for 2 [99, 7.0 grazing some time 108]

47

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank each day all year round’ ‘Scatter feed or similar 1 [126] 9 [61, 70, 9.5 that encourages 73, 76, 99, indoors exercise’ 100, 108, 9.3 127, 135] outdoors ‘Food placed high up 5 [100, 7.8 so elephants must 108, 127, stretch to reach it’ 136, 137] Recommend that some food should be ‘Food provided in such 3 [105, 10 [21, 10 provided in an intellectually challenging a manner which 124, 138] 99, 100, indoors manner, such as through the use of provides intellectual 108, 112, 9.3 puzzle feeders, hidden treats, or other stimulation’ 127, 134- outdoors forms of food-based environmental 136, 139] enrichment. Need more research on effect of Pilot studies identified 2 [109, predictable cues on anticipatory expression of 140] behaviour anticipatory behaviour in connection with timed events 8.8.23 Food that gives readily digestible Suggest Body Condition Scoring must be energy such as grains, bread, fruit, performed quarterly, using the system vegetables and low-fibre pellets should not developed by the Elephant Welfare be used in bulk as they can cause Group (EWG). Changes must be unnecessary weight gain. Food used as monitored over time, and reviewed at treats should be factored into the overall least annually to identify any significant diet formulation. changes of body condition 8.8.24 Animals must have access to clean drinking water at all times from the indoor and the outdoor areas. 8.8.25 A nutritional plan must be drawn up and maintained for each elephant, the elephant

48

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank monitored regularly and the diet and food presentation modified when needed. Behavioural management Suggest use of the EWG behavioural 8.8.26 The individual behaviour of elephants welfare assessment tool must be must be continually monitored and assessed undertaken and scores submitted (see Appendix 4: Elephant Profiles in the quarterly. current Management Guidelines for the Welfare of Zoo Animals: Elephants (BIAZA)). Changes must be monitored over time, and reviewed at least annually to identify any significant changes. Each elephant’s behavioural management plan should be modified based on current welfare tool results, and any changes detected over time. Suggest that every facility must monitor Strong opinion of EAP elephant behaviour throughout the and Project Team that overnight period, every night, whenever it is essential to monitor keepers are not present. This can be elephants overnight, accomplished through collection of video when keepers are not footage, which is reviewed daily, or by present. Important to the presence of a keeper throughout the monitor night-time night. behaviour so aware of problems. Each facility must have video cameras to monitor overnight behaviour, and cameras located to cover indoors and as Harris report indicated much outdoor space as possible. Zoos more stereotypies may have cameras in strategic locations occurred at night [95] throughout the enclosure to cover a certain proportion of the total enclosure, or may want to locate cameras to capture

49

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank key resources. However, ideally, all or Stereotypies and 3 [109, most of the outdoor space will also be aggression may both 114, 141] monitored. occur at night

More research is needed on overnight activity, behaviours, rest, and social behaviour (both affiliative and agonistic) 8.8.27 Extensive and varied enrichment must It is suggested that zoos need a planned, be provided in both the inside and outside rotated programme of enrichment in environments and be part of the daily routine. It place, which provides novelty, and has must be a continuous process, carried out each clearly defined aims and evaluation day as an integral part of the management methods. Both the enrichment plan and programme, and records must be kept and regular and routine evaluation of the made available to inspectors upon request. efficacy of enrichment used should be clearly documented. The enrichment plan should include ’Regular provision of 1 [93] 9 [64, 66, 8.8 provision of: live trees, large logs, ‘toys’, novel enrichment’ 68, 90, 100, items for scratching/rubbing, items to 127, 135, encourage stretching/reaching, items 142, 143] providing an intellectual challenge. ‘Toys’, objects can 2 [24, 88] 8 [61, 96, 8.6 manipulate 99, 100, indoor 127, 135, 7.0 144-146] outdoor ‘Trees/branches’ 1 [96] 10 ‘Live trees’ 2 [67, 100] 7.0 ‘Furniture which 1 [88] 7 [67, 68, 9.5 enables 90, 100, indoors 112, 127, scratching/rubbing’ 8.0 147] outdoors ‘Large logs’ 4 [99, 100, 8.3 145, 147]

50

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank There is insufficient evidence on the ’Auditory stimulation 1 [148] 1 [100, Assigne importance/positive effects of auditory e.g. music’ 149] d VERY enrichment ‘Interactive auditory 5 [100, low stimulation , e.g. chime’ 127, 135, ranks at EAP believed could be detrimental if 144, 149] stakehol auditory source not appropriate or not der selected carefully. worksho p, More research is needed on auditory ranging enrichment from 1.0-3.2 Staff training 8.8.31 – 8.8.34 This section was not reviewed. Use of chains and shackles Suggest that zoos should work to move ‘Never chained’ 2 [150, 2 [76, 2.5 8.8.35 Physical restraint of elephants away from use of chains, and that 151] 152] through the use of chains and shackles elephants should never be chained for must be minimised. There are sound safety long periods. and husbandry/welfare management reasons for its continuation at present but There is no evidence on acceptable the consequences of bad practice are duration of chaining, but the EAP significant and severe. There is justification unanimously agreed that 3 hours was too for limited periods of chaining for certain long husbandry and veterinary procedures. Further research needed to determine ‘Not chained for long 2 [59, 94] 10 [60, 10 8.8.36 All chains and shackling equipment must effect of chaining for different periods of periods, e.g. overnight’ 64, 66, 68, be maintained to the highest standard and time 69, 71, 73, replaced immediately if damaged or showing 96, 113, signs of wear and tear. Further research needed on use of crush 153] vs. chains for short minor procedures. 8.8.37 Written, generic approval of routine chaining must be given by senior management in a zoo. In addition the parameters of exceptional chaining must be defined.

51

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank

8.8.38 Elephants must not be chained for periods in excess of three out of 24 hours.

8.8.39 Only named, trained persons may carry out chaining. This may include elephant experts brought in for staff training and/or elephant transportation. Any unplanned variations from routine practice must be documented and management notified.

8.8.40 Keepers must be adequately trained in the procedure and safety aspects followed. Ankus or hook It is recommended that zoos move away Positive reinforcement 3 [154- 8.8.41 The ankus is a tool used to cue the from using the ankus or hook, and move training methods are 156] elephant to maintain commands and train towards only use of positive known to be effective in them. It must be used only by staff who have reinforcement methods for training. a range of animal had appropriate training. Correct use of the species ankus will not break the skin or cause any No research has been done on this topic kind of physical or mental injury. The handle in elephants; however, the EAP of the ankus must never be used to hit an unanimously agreed that no negative elephant. All injuries caused by an ankus must stimulus of any type should be used in be reported in an incident book, reviewed by the training of elephants management and be made available to inspectors. Electric goad No changes suggested 8.8.42 Electric goads must only ever be used to protect human safety in extreme situations and never as a way of controlling the animal to ensure compliance. Goads may be used only by staff that have had appropriate training. In all cases where an electric goad has been

52

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

Evidence Current SSSMZP Guidelines Comments or suggested changes Identified Resources Crit. lit. Grey Wild lit. WS lit. Rank used, a full report must be produced detailing the situation and circumstances of its use. The report must be reviewed by management and be made available to inspectors. ‘Crit. lit’ = critically appraised literature from the rapid review; ‘Grey lit’ = grey literature, or other relevant peer reviewed literature that did not meet inclusion criteria for the appraised literature. ‘Wild lit’= literature on wild African or Asian elephants. WS ranking = rank assigned for that resource by stakeholders at the project workshop. Numbers listed in each column indicate number of documents from each type of literature cited which are relevant to the guideline; citations in brackets list the specific papers. Highlighted research needs are in red font.

53

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

3.3.4 Discussion The EAP and the Project Team reviewed evidence on resources important to elephants compiled from: (1) peer-reviewed and grey literature (2) stakeholder teleconferences, and (3) a ranking of these resources by stakeholders at a project workshop. This compiled evidence was used to assess the current SSSMZP guidelines on elephants. Based on their knowledge and expertise, and on the weight of available evidence, a range of comments and suggestions were made either in support of, or to suggest changes to, current guidelines.

Further research needed Insufficient evidence was available for a number of topics. These were identified as areas needing further research, and include:

1. Social compatibility between elephants: what determines it, how can it be identified 2. Indoor space requirements for cows, bulls, mixed groups, family herds, calves 3. Minimum outdoor space requirements for captive elephants 4. Assess exposure to environmental infrasound at different facilities, and short and long term impacts this may have on elephants 5. Indoor pool and water usage (determine if different at different zoos) 6. Enclosure usage by elephants at each zoo 7. Effect of predictable cues on anticipatory behaviour 8. Overnight activity, behaviours, rest, and social behaviour (both affiliative and agonistic) 9. Impact of different types of auditory enrichment 10. Effect of chaining for different periods of time 11. Use of crush vs. chains for short minor procedures

54

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

4. CONCLUSIONS 1. The methodology used in both work packages provided a consistent, evidence- based approach. 2. This project has created a reliable and validated evidence-based behavioural welfare assessment tool for elephants based on welfare indicators identified by stakeholders and from peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature. 3. The welfare assessment tool contains: (1) a variety of more established welfare measures for elephants as identified by the peer-reviewed literature and (2) more novel welfare measures generated from stakeholder consultation. 4. Stakeholder interest and engagement was crucial to this process by providing important insights into potential welfare measures. 5. Compiled evidence on measurements of elephant welfare from many scientific papers helped overcome limitations from the small numbers of animals and limited controls in individual papers. This gave greater confidence in the evidence for the selected welfare measures. 6. The use of non-peer-reviewed literature was useful in identifying additional potential welfare measures. 7. The majority of the elements measured in the prototype welfare tool were able to assess behavioural measures of welfare reliably; this underscores the success of the approach used. 8. The tool could be an essential part of the ongoing efforts by zoos, in collaboration with the Elephant Welfare Group, to assess and improve the welfare of captive elephants. 9. Using evidence from this variety of sources, incorporating stakeholder input, peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, and expert review, is recommended in future development of welfare assessment tools. 10. A similar approach of gathering stakeholder opinion and searching peer- reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature was successfully used to review existing Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice guidelines for elephants in captivity. 11. Systematic identification and appraisal of peer-reviewed literature, and review of non-peer-reviewed literature, provided confidence that a comprehensive range of resources of importance to elephants were identified. 12. Stakeholders generated exceptionally novel and innovative ideas on resources of importance to captive elephants. 13. Suggested changes to the existing Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice relating to elephants in captivity were developed following a final review of all of the compiled evidence by an expert committee. 14. This type of evidence-based approach has proved useful for review of husbandry standards as it can provide greater confidence that recommended changes will result in improved welfare. 15. A number of priorities for future research were identified by this project (see Appendix P for summary).

55

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

16. Using evidence from stakeholder input, peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, and expert review, is recommended in future development of welfare assessment tools.

56

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

REFERENCES

1. Clubb, R. and G. Mason, The welfare of zoo elephants in Europe: mortality, morbidity and reproduction. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, Marwell Zoological Park, 7th and 8th July 2003., ed. T.C. Gilbert2003. 67-76. 2. Clubb, R. and G.J. Mason, A review of the welfare of zoo elephants in Europe, RSPCA, Editor 2002: Horsham, UK. 3. Clubb, R., et al., Compromised Survivorship in Zoo Elephants. Science, 2008. 322(5908): p. 1649. 4. Kiiru, W., The sad state of captive elephants in Canada, Zoocheck, Editor 2007: Canada. 5. McCarthy, M., 'Cruel' treatment of elephants in zoos must stop, says RSPCA, in The Independent2010. 6. CAPS. 10 facts about zoos. 2010 [cited 2015 6 March]; Available from: http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos. 7. Harris, M., C. Sherwin, and S. Harris, The welfare, housing and husbandry of elephants in UK zoos. Report to DEFRA. University of Bristol, 2008. 8. Zoos Forum Elephant Working Group, Elephants in UK Zoos: Zoos Forum review of issues in elephant husbandry in UK zoos in light of the Report by Harris et al (2008), 2010, Wildlife Species Conservation Division, Defra: Bristol. 9. BIAZA. Terms of Reference for Elephant Welfare Group. 2011 [cited 2015 19 March]; Available from: http://www.biaza.org.uk/uploads/Elephant%20Welfare%20Group/EWG%20TOR%20May%2 011.pdf. 10. BIAZA. EWG Letter to UK Zoo Directors. 2011 [cited 2015 19 March]; Available from: http://www.biaza.org.uk/uploads/Elephant%20Welfare%20Group/EWG%20Letter%20to%2 0Directors.pdf. 11. Harris, M., C.M. Sherwin, and S. Harris, The Welfare, Housing and Husbandry of Elephants in UK Zoos, Defra, Editor 2008. 12. Mason, G.J., Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in ecology & evolution, 2010. 25(12): p. 713-721. 13. BIAZA, Management Guidelines for the Welfare of Zoo Animals: Elephants, 2010, British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums: London. 14. Broom, D.M., Indicators of poor welfare. British veterinary journal, 1986. 142(6): p. 524-526. 15. Dawkins, M.S., What is good welfare and how can we achieve it. The future of animal farming: renewing the ancient contract. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, 2008: p. 73-82. 16. Morgan, K.N. and C.T. Tromborg, Sources of stress in captivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2007. 102(3): p. 262-302. 17. Mason, G.J. and J.S. Veasey, How should the psychological well‐being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biology, 2010. 29(2): p. 237-255. 18. Mason, G.J., Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour, 1991. 41(6): p. 1015-1037. 19. Mason, G. and N. Latham, Can't stop, won't stop: is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare, 2004. 13: p. S57-S70. 20. Hill, S.P. and D.M. Broom, Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice. Zoo Biology, 2009. 28(6): p. 531-544. 21. Veasey, J., Concepts in the care and welfare of captive elephants. International Zoo Yearbook, 2006: p. 63-79. 22. Meagher, R.K., Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2009. 119(1): p. 1-14. 23. Whitham, J.C. and N. Wielebnowski, Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biol, 2009. 28(6): p. 545-60.

57

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

24. Gurusamy, V., A. Tribe, and C.J.C. Phillips, Identification of major welfare issues for captive elephant husbandry by stakeholders. Animal Welfare, 2014. 23(1): p. 11-24. 25. Beck, L.C., W.L. Trombetta, and S. Share, Using Focus Group Sessions before Decisions Are Made. North Carolina Medical Journal, 1986. 47(2): p. 73-74. 26. Wilkinson, S., Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1998. 1(3): p. 181-203. 27. Barbour, R., Doing Focus Groups2008, London: Sage. 28. Morgan, D.L., Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 1996. 22: p. 129-152. 29. Kitzinger, J., Qualitative Research - Introducing Focus Groups. British Medical Journal, 1995. 311(7000): p. 299-302. 30. Skarstad, G., L. Terragni, and H. Torjusen, Animal welfare according to Norwegian consumers and producers: definitions and implications. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 2007. 15(3): p. 74-90. 31. Miele, M., et al., Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 2011. 20(1): p. 103-117. 32. Braun, V. and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 2006. 3(2): p. 77-101. 33. Krueger, R. and M. Casey, Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 4th ed2009, London: Sage Publications. 34. Blokhuis, H., et al., Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 2003. 12(4): p. 445-456. 35. Brscic, M., et al., Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2010. 8(2s): p. 601-603. 36. Wemelsfelder, F., et al., The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2000. 67(3): p. 193-215. 37. Wemelsfelder, F., et al., Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour, 2001. 62(2): p. 209-220. 38. Wemelsfelder, F. and A.B. Lawrence, Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on- farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science, 2001. 51: p. 21-25. 39. Abou-Ismail, U., et al., Can sleep behaviour be used as an indicator of stress in group-housed rats (Rattus norvegicus)? Animal Welfare, 2007. 16(2): p. 185-188. 40. Hänninen, L., Sleep and rest in calves-relationship to welfare, housing and hormonal activity. 2007. 41. Gill, T.M. and A.R. Feinstein, A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. Jama, 1994. 272(8): p. 619-626. 42. AssureWel: Advancing Animal Welfare Assurance. [cited 2015 20 April ]; Available from: http://www.assurewel.org. 43. AWIN: Animal Welfare Indicators. [cited 2015 20 April]; Available from: http://www.animal- welfare-indicators.net/site/. 44. Kiddie, J.L. and L.M. Collins, Development and validation of a quality of life assessment tool for use in kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2014. 158: p. 57-68. 45. Pritchard, J., et al., Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive veterinary medicine, 2005. 69(3): p. 265-283. 46. Wells, D., et al., Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice. Laboratory animals, 2006. 40(2): p. 111-114. 47. Mason, G. and M. Mendl, Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare, 1993. 2(4): p. 301-319.

58

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

48. Leighty, K.A., J. Soltis, and A. Savage, GPS Assessment of the Use of Exhibit Space and Resources by African Elephants (Loxodonta africana). Zoo Biology, 2010. 29(2): p. 210-220. 49. Leighty, K.A., et al., GPS Determination of Walking Rates in Captive African Elephants (Loxodonta africana). Zoo Biology, 2009. 28(1): p. 16-28. 50. Lee, P.C., Allomothering among African elephants. Animal Behaviour, 1987. 35(1): p. 278- 291. 51. Fureix, C., et al., Investigating anhedonia in a non-conventional species: Do some riding horses Equus caballus display symptoms of depression? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2015. 162: p. 26-36. 52. Phythian, C., et al., Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2013. 144(1): p. 73-79. 53. Lee, P.C., et al., Enduring consequences of early experiences: 40 year effects on survival and success among African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Biology letters, 2013. 9(2): p. 20130011. 54. Moss, C.J., Estrous Behavior and Female Choice in the African Elephant. Behaviour, 1983. 86: p. 167-196. 55. Moss, C.J., The demography of an African elephant (Loxodonta africana) population in Amboseli, Kenya. Journal of Zoology, 2001. 255: p. 145-156. 56. Mumby, H.S., et al., Climatic variation and age-specific survival in Asian elephants from Myanmar. Ecology, 2013. 94(5): p. 1131-1141. 57. Poole, J.H., Mate Guarding, Reproductive Success and Female Choice in African Elephants. Animal Behaviour, 1989. 37: p. 842-849. 58. Robinson, M.R., K.U. Mar, and V. Lummaa, Senescence and age-specific trade-offs between reproduction and survival in female Asian elephants. Ecology Letters, 2012. 15(3): p. 260- 266. 59. Vanitha, V., K. Thiyagesan, and N. Baskaran, Social life of captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Southern India: Implications for elephant welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2011. 14(1): p. 42-58. 60. Kurt, F. and M. Garai. Stereotypies in captive Asian elephants-a symptom of social isolation. in International Elephant and Rhino Research Symposium, Vienna, Austria, Schüling, Münster. 2001. 61. Lehnhardt, J., Husbandry, in Biology, medicine, and surgery of elephants, M.E. Fowler and S.K. Mikota, Editors. 2006, Blackwell Publishing: Ames, Oxford & Carlton. p. 45-55. 62. Riley, J.V., The social relationships between female African elephants (Loxodonta africana) at Knowsley Safari Park, in Zoo Biology2014, Nottingham Trent University. p. 61. 63. Whilde, J. and N. Marples, Effect of a birth on the behavior of a family group of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at Dublin Zoo. Zoo Biology, 2012. 31(4): p. 442-452. 64. Clubb, R. and G. Mason, A Review of the Welfare of Zoo Elephants in Europe: A Report Commissioned by the RSPCA, 2002, Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford: Oxford. 65. Clubb, R., et al., Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science, 2008. 322(5908): p. 1649-1649. 66. Garrison, J., The Challenges of Meeting the Needs of Captive Elephants, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 237-258. 67. Hancocks, D., Most Zoos Do Not Deserve Elephants, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 259-284. 68. Hutchins, M., B. Smith, and M. Keele, Zoos as Responsible Stewards of Elephants, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 285-306.

59

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

69. Kane, J., D. Forthman, and D. Hancocks, Optimal conditions for captive elephants: a report by the coalition for captive elephant well-being, 2005, Coalition for Captive Elephant Well- Being: Madison, WI. 70. Poole, J. and P. Granli, Mind and Movement: Meeting the Interests of Elephants, in An Elephant in the Room: The Science and Well-Being of Elephants in Captivity, D. Forthman, L. Kane, and H. D, Editors. 2009, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy: North Grafton, MA. p. 2-21. 71. Poole, J.H. and C.J. Moss, Elephant Sociality and Complexity: The Scientific Evidence, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 69-100. 72. Schulte, B.A., Behavior and social life, in Biology, medicine, and surgery of elephants, M.E. Fowler and S.K. Mikota, Editors. 2006, Blackwell Publishing: Ames, Oxford & Carlton. p. 35- 43. 73. Varma, S. and D. Prasad. Welfare and management of elephants in captivity—insights and recommendations. in Welfare and management of elephants in Captivity: Proceedings of a Workshop on Welfare Parameters and their Significance for Captive Elephants and their Mahouts in India.(S. Varma and D. Prasad, eds.). 2008. 74. Lee, P. and C. Moss, Welfare and well-being of captive elephants: Perspectives from wild elephant life histories, in An Elephant In The Room: The Science and Well-Being of Elephants in Captivity, L. Kane, et al., Editors. 2009, Tufts Univesity Press: MA, USA. p. 22-38. 75. Rees, P.A., Are elephant enrichment studies missing the point? International Zoo News, 2000. 47: p. 369-371. 76. The Zoos Forum, Elephants in UK Zoos. Zoos Forum review of issues in elephant husbandry in UK zoos in the light of the Report by Harris et al (2008), 2010. 77. Archie, E.A., C.J. Moss, and S.C. Alberts, The ties that bind: genetic relatedness predicts the fission and fusion of social groups in wild African elephants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2006. 273(1586): p. 513-522. 78. Charif, R.A., et al., Spatial relationships and matrilineal kinship in African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) clans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2005. 57(4): p. 327-338. 79. Chiyo, P.I., et al., Association patterns of African elephants in all-male groups: the role of age and genetic relatedness. Animal Behaviour, 2011. 81(6): p. 1093-1099. 80. de Silva, S., A.D. Ranjeewa, and S. Kryazhimskiy, The dynamics of social networks among female Asian elephants. Bmc Ecology, 2011. 11(1): p. 17. 81. Fernando, P. and R. Lande, Molecular genetic and behavioral analysis of social organization in the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2000. 48(1): p. 84-91. 82. Lee, P.C., Early Social-Development among African Elephant Calves. National Geographic Research, 1986. 2(3): p. 388-401. 83. Lee, P.C., Allomothering among African Elephants. Animal Behaviour, 1987. 35: p. 278-291. 84. Lee, P.C. and C.J. Moss, Early Maternal Investment in Male and Female African Elephant Calves. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 1986. 18(5): p. 353-361. 85. Lee, P.C. and C.J. Moss, The social context for learning and behavioural development among wild African elephants. Mammalian social learning: Comparative and ecological perspectives, 1999(72): p. 102. 86. Vidya, T.N.C. and R. Sukumar, Social organization of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in southern India inferred from microsatellite DNA. Journal of Ethology, 2005. 23(2): p. 205-210. 87. Wittemyer, G. and W. Getz, Hierarchical dominance structure and social organization in African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Animal Behaviour, 2007. 73(4): p. 671-681. 88. Adams, J. and J. Berg, Behavior of female African elephants (Loxodonta african) in captivity. Applied Animal Ethology, 1980. 6(3): p. 257-276.

60

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

89. Brockett, R., et al., Nocturnal behavior in a group of unchained female African elephants. Zoo Biology, 1999. 18(2): p. 101-109. 90. Brown, J., N. Wielebnowski, and J. Cheeran, Pain, stress, and suffering in elephants: What is the evidence and how can we measure it?, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 121-148. 91. Wilson, M., M. Bloomsmith, and T. Maple, Stereotypic swaying and serum cortisol concentrations in three captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Animal Welfare, 2004. 13(1): p. 39-43. 92. Elzanowski, A. and A. Sergiel, Stereotypic behaviour of a female Asiatic elephant (Elephas maximus) in a zoo. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2006. 9(3): p. 223-232. 93. Mueller, J.E., et al., Seasonal and Diurnal Variations in African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) and Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) Behavior in a Northern Climate Zoo. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2013. 26(4). 94. Schmid, J., KEEPING CIRCUS ELEPHANTS TEMPORARILY IN PADDOCKS - THE EFFECTS ON THEIR BEHAVIOR. Animal Welfare, 1995. 4(2): p. 87-101. 95. Harris, M., S. Harris, and C. Sherwin, The welfare, housing and husbandry of elephants in UK zoos. Report to DEFRA. University of Bristol, 2008. 96. Mallapur, A. and A. Ramanathan, Differences in husbandry and management systems across ten facilities housing Asian elephants Elephas maximas in India. International Zoo Yearbook, 2009. 43: p. 189-197. 97. Rees, P.A., The sizes of elephant groups in zoos: implications for elephant welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009. 12(1): p. 44-60. 98. Garai, M.E., Special relationships between female Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in zoological gardens. Ethology, 1992. 90(3): p. 187-205. 99. Poole, T. and V.J. Taylor, Can the behavioural needs of Asian elephants be met in captivity? Zoos' Print, 1999. 1-14(3-12): p. 2-8. 100. Elephant Husbandry Resource Guide, ed. D. Olson2004, Lawrence: Allen Press. 101. Kumar, V., et al., Non-invasive assessment of reproductive status and stress in captive Asian elephants in three south Indian zoos. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 2014. 201: p. 37-44. 102. Endres, J., et al., Documentation 2002: Elephants in European zoos and safari parks, ed. E.E. Group2004, Münster, Germany: Schüling Verlag. 214. 103. Druce, H., et al., The effect of mature elephant bull introductions on resident bull's group size and musth periods: Phinda Private Game Reserve, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 2006. 36(2): p. 133-137. 104. Evans, K.E. and S. Harris, Adolescence in male African elephants, Loxodonta africana, and the importance of sociality. Animal Behaviour, 2008. 76(3): p. 779-787. 105. Taylor, V.J. and T.B. Poole, Captive breeding and infant mortality in Asian elephants: a comparison between twenty western zoos and three eastern elephant centers. Zoo Biology, 1998. 17(4): p. 311-332. 106. Archie, E.A., et al., Behavioural inbreeding avoidance in wild African elephants. Molecular Ecology, 2007. 16(19): p. 4138-4148. 107. Posta, B., R. Huber, and D.E. Moore, III, The effects of housing on zoo elephant behavior: A quantitative case study of diurnal and seasonal variation. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2013. 26(1): p. 37-52. 108. Kinzley, C., Right here, right now: The Oakland Zoo improves the lives of their elephants, in AZA Annual Conference2006, AZA: Chicago, IL. 109. Martos Martinez-Caja, A., Links between Anticipatory Behaviour and Stereotypies in UK Zoo Elephants., in Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies2014, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh. p. 64.

61

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

110. Meller, C.L., C.C. Croney, and D. Shepherdson, Effects of rubberized flooring on Asian elephant behavior in captivity. Zoo Biology, 2007. 26(1): p. 51-61. 111. Roocroft, A., Indoors natural substrates for elephants & medical issues associated with hard surfaces. Animal Keepers' Forum, 2005. 32(10): p. 480-492. 112. Tresz, H. and H. Wright, Let Them be Elephants! How Phoenix Zoo Integrated ThreeProblem'Animals. International Zoo News, 2006. 348: p. 154. 113. Kirkden, R. and D. Broom, Individual Differences in the Causes of Stereotypy in Captive Elephants; A report commissioned by Animal Defenders International, 2002. 114. Williams, E., A Behavioural Assessment of Activity Budgets and Resting Behaviours in Captive Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus), 2013, Nottingham Trent University. p. 69. 115. Haspeslagh, M., et al., A survey of foot problems, stereotypic behaviour and floor type in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in European zoos. Animal Welfare, 2013. 22(4): p. 437- 443. 116. Douglas-Hamilton, I., On the Ecology and Behaviour of the African Elephant.'The Elephants of Lake Manyara', 1972, University of Oxford. 117. Lindeque, M. and P. Lindeque, Satellite tracking of elephants in northwestern Namibia. African Journal of Ecology, 1991. 29(3): p. 196-206. 118. De Villiers, P. and O. Kok, Home range, association and related aspects of elephants in the eastern Transvaal Lowveld. African Journal of Ecology, 1997. 35(3): p. 224-236. 119. Conybeare, A.M., Elephant occupancy and vegetation change in relation to artificial water points in a Kalahari sand area of Hwange National Park, 1991, University of Zimbabwe. 120. Sukumar, R., The Asian elephant: ecology and management1993: Cambridge University Press. 121. Bhattacharjee, A., Infrasonic noise in captive elephant enclosure and possible implications for welfare, 2013, Nottingham Trent University. p. 81. 122. Rees, P.A., Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) dust bathe in response to an increase in environmental temperature. Journal of Thermal Biology, 2002. 27(5): p. 353-358. 123. Friend, T.H., Behavior of picketed circus elephants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1999. 62(1): p. 73-88. 124. Rees, P.A., Activity budgets and the relationship between feeding and stereotypic behaviors in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in a Zoo. Zoo Biology, 2009. 28(2): p. 79-97. 125. Weisz, I., A. Wuestenhagen, and H. Schwammer, Research on Nocturnal Behaviour of African Elephants at Schönbrunn Zoo International Zoo News, 2000. 47/4(301): p. 228-233. 126. Carpenter, M., Increasing activity levels in captive elephants: 'spread' (is) the word. Animal Keepers' Forum, 2003. 30(8): p. 328-330. 127. Angele, C., N. Barber, and A. Plowman. Elephant enrichment at Paignton Zoo. in Fourth International Conference on Environmental Enrichment. 1999. Edinburgh, Scotland: Shape of Enrichment. 128. Durham, A., Enriching the Asian elephants Elephas maximus by presenting a daily diet in various ways at ZSL Whipsnade Zoo. Ratel, 2007. 34(3): p. 20-23. 129. Gilbert, J. and V.J. Hare, Elephant feeder balls. The Shape of Enrichment, 1994. 3(4): p. 3-5. 130. Melfi, V., et al., Wire hay racks: simple but effective enrichment, in BIAZA Elephant TAG meeting2004: Chester Zoo, Chester, UK. 131. Karunaratne, S.H.P.P. and K.B. Ranawana, A preliminary study on feeding activity patterns and budgets of domesticated elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science, Biological Sciences, 1999. 27(1): p. 61-65. 132. Stoinski, T., E. Daniel, and T. Maple, A preliminary study of the behavioral effects of feeding enrichment on African Elephants. Zoo Biology, 2000. 19(6): p. 485-493. 133. Duer, C.K., Function of Play in Behavioral Enrichment of Captive Asian Elephants (Elephas Maximus), 2009, Oklahoma State University.

62

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

134. Hatt, J.M. and M. Clauss, Feeding Asian and African elephants Elephas maximus and Loxodonta africana in captivity. International Zoo Yearbook, 2006. 40: p. 88-95. 135. Thomas, S., et al., The effectiveness of a long term environmental enrichment programme for elephants at Paignton Zoo Environmental Park. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, Chester Zoo, Chester, UK, 2001. 136. Haight, J., Reverse perspective: basic elephant management or enrichment? Animal Keepers' Forum, 1994. 21(3): p. 115-116. 137. Law, G. and A. Kitchener, Simple Enrichment Techniques for Bears, Bats and Elephants – Untried and Untested. International Zoo News, 2002. 49/1(314): p. 4-12. 138. Koyama, N., et al., Effects of daily management changes on behavioral patterns of a solitary female African elephant (Loxodonta africana) in a zoo. Animal Science Journal, 2012. 83(7): p. 562-570. 139. McCormick, W., How Enriching Is Training?, in Zoology - Sandwich Placement at Paignton Zoo2003, Cardiff University. p. 12. 140. Lawn, I., Characterizing Anticipatory Behaviour in four Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) at Twycross Zoo, in School of Veterinary Medicine & Science2013, University of Nottingham. 141. Mursell, J., Behavioural assessment of night-time activity in captive elephants in the UK, in Veterinary Medicine & Science2014, University of Nottingham. p. 89. 142. Heinkel, B., Evaluation of provision and analysis of elephant enrichment, 2014, Nottingham Trent University. p. 42. 143. Mellen, J.D., J.C. Barber, and G.W. Miller, Can We Assess the Needs of Elephants in Zoos? Can We Meet the Needs of Elephants in Zoos?, in Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, C. Wemmer and C. Christen, Editors. 2008, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p. 307-326. 144. Gambertoglio, G., Enriching the days of our elephants. Animal Keepers' Forum, 2009. 36(6): p. 269-272. 145. Hnath, P.T. and M.N. Yannessa, Effects of facility modifications on elephant activity levels. Animal Keepers' Forum, 2002. 29(10): p. 421-427. 146. Landucci, G., L. Dobrzelecki, and K. Keefe, Painting as enrichment for Cheyenne Mountain Zoo's 0.1 protected contact African elephant. Animal Keepers' Forum, 1999. 26(10): p. 400- 404. 147. Thomas, S., A long term environmental enrichment programme for captive elephants - a behavioural study, University of Wales Cardiff. p. 26. 148. Wells, D. and R. Irwin, Auditory stimulation as enrichment for zoo-housed Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Animal Welfare, 2008. 17(4): p. 335-340. 149. Melo, L., Auditory enrichment for Asian elephants. The Shape Of Enrichment, 1999. 8: p. 1-4. 150. Friend, T.H. and M.L. Parker, The effect of penning versus picketing on stereotypic behavior of circus elephants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1999. 64(3): p. 213-225. 151. Gruber, T., et al., Variation in stereotypic behavior related to restraint in circus elephants. Zoo Biology, 2000. 19(3): p. 209-221. 152. Wiedenmayer, C. and R. Tanner, Untethered housing of Asian elephants Elephas maximus at Zurich Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook, 1995. 34(0): p. 200-205. 153. Stead, S., D. Meltzer, and R. Palme, The measurement of glucocorticoid concentrations in the serum and faeces of captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana) after ACTH stimulation: research communication. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 2000. 71(3): p. p. 192-196. 154. Hiby, E., N. Rooney, and J. Bradshaw, Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2004(13): p. 63-69. 155. McGreevy, P., R. Boakes, and R.A. Boakes, Carrots and sticks: Principles of animal training2011: Darlington Press.

63

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report

156. Yin, S., et al., Efficacy of a remote-controlled, positive-reinforcement, dog-training system for modifying problem behaviors exhibited when people arrive at the door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 113(1): p. 123-138. 157. Ferguson, C.J., An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2009. 40(5): p. 532. 158. de Mel, R., D.K. Weerakoon, and W. Ratnasooriya, A comparison of Stereotypic Behaviour in Asian Elephants at Three Different Institutions in Sri Lanka. Gajah, 2013: p. 25. 159. Langbauer, W.R., Elephant communication. Zoo Biology, 2000. 19(5): p. 425-445. 160. Wilson, M.L., et al., Nocturnal behavior in a group of female African elephants. Zoo Biology, 2006. 25(3): p. 173-186. 161. The R Project for Statistical Computing, 2015.

64

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods for elephants Table A.1: Definitions of methods of assessing welfare [157] Method of Effect size (degree to which this Definition assessing welfare was proved) Compared with Welfare measure when has or Effect size (standardised change choices does not have things it is in measure Mean difference/ motivated to gain or to avoid standard deviation of both) assed in motivation or choice tests(either positive approach or negative avoidance) Correlation with Correlation coefficient behavioural measures of welfare Correlation with Correlation coefficient physiological indicators of welfare Correlation with Correlation coefficient affective measures of welfare (e.g. cognitive bias) Short term (e.g. how the animal deals with Effect size (standardised change manipulation of response to stressor) in measure Mean difference/ welfare state standard deviation of both) (hours) Long term Effect size (standardised change manipulation of in measure Mean difference/ environment standard deviation of both) (days) Comparison with % difference in time captive vs natural or wild for now just write down functional mean time spent in activity, wild behaviour and standard deviations variance or standard error if provided.

Table A.2: Summary of information extracted from the 33 critically reviewed publications Category Question Possible answers Study population Species African (Loxodonta africana), Asian (Elephas maximus) Sub-species L. africana africana, L. africana cyclotis, E. maximus maximus, E. maximus indicus, E. maximus sumatranus Sample size (males: females) Age range Type of facility or facilities studied Zoo, safari park, circus, timber camp, other

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 65

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods in elephants

Number of establishments involved in the study Approximate size of area Number of enclosures or groups study elephants housed in Study design Study design Observational (qualitative), observational (quantitative), retrospective, propspective, experimental, repeated measures design, Independent Number of repeated measures of same animal Control group used Yes, No Study manipulations Yes, No Rater blind to study manipulations Yes, No Welfare Welfare measures used or measures identified Media Live observations, video observations, proxy assessor (e.g keeper questionnaire) Sampling method Scan, focal, instantaneous, conspicuous behaviour Recording Continuous, instantaneous, one- zero Hours of observations Study time period Hours, days, weeks, months, years Time of day of samples (how Consistent time, spread representative of the time period throughout day, spread are the samples) throughout night, spread throughout 24 hours, etc. Method of assessing welfare See Appendix Table A.1 Reliability Reliability of study methods See Section 2.4.1, Table 6, Validity Validity of study methods See Section 2.4.1, Table 6 Statistics Statistics used in the paper Parametric (Spearman’s, Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney, Wilcoxon), non-parametric (ANOVA, GLM, logistic regression), modelling, control for random effects

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 66

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods in elephants

Table A.3: Behavioural indicators of welfare which have been used in assessment of captive elephant welfare Results of indicator Correlation Type of Indicator Example of indicators Authors which used the assessed with other indicator category used indicator Significant Percent measures change change Koyama et al (2010) Laws et al (2007) Gruber et al (2000) Vanitha et al (2011) Elzanowski & Sergiel (2006) Friend (1999) Stereotypies, foot Feeding Hnath (2001) lifting, faeces Walking Abnormal Schmid (1995) manipulation, trunk Resting 9 papers 17 papers behaviour Schmid et al (2001) swinging Foot health Wells & Irwin (2008) Cortisol Wilson et al (2004) Rees (2004) Friend & Parker (1999) Behavioural Meller et al (2007) Stoinski (2000) Whilde & Marples (2011) Rees (2009) Koyama et al (2010) Laws et al (2007) Gruber et al (2000) Friend (1999) Walking Hnath (2001) Sleep/rest Standing rest, lying rest 4 papers 4 papers Stereotypies Schmid et al (2001) Posta et al (2013) Friend & Parker (1999) Meller et al (2007) Whilde & Marples (2011)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 67

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods in elephants

Koyama et al (2010) Gruber et al (2000) Friend (1999) Hnath (2001) Eating, drinking, Walking Schmid et al (2001) Feeding 3 papers 10 papers ingestion Stereotypies Posta et al (2013) Stoinski et al (2000) Whilde & Marples (2011) Rees (2009) Wells & Irwin (2008) Posta et al (2013) Enrichment use, Meller et al (2007) Environmental investigative/ Stoinski et al (2000) 3 papers 6 papers interaction exploratory behaviour Whilde & Marples (2011) Hnath (2001) Schmid et al (2001) Koyama et al (2010) Gruber et al (2000) Friend (1999) Hnath (2001) Schmid (1995) Dust bathing, mud Comfort (self- Schmid et al (2001) wallowing, general 4 papers 12 papers maintenance) Wells & Irwin (2008) grooming Friend & Parker (1999) Stoinski et al (2000) Whilde & Marples (2011) Rees (2009) Posta et al (2013) Posta et al (2013) Koyama et al (2010) Rest Gruber et al (2000) Activity Walking/locomotion Feeding Schmid et al (2001) 5 papers 10 papers Stereotypies Wells & Irwin (2008) Stoinski et al (2000) Meller et al (2007)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 68

Appendix A: Tables on literature review of welfare assessment methods in elephants

Rees (2009) Whilde & Marples (2011) Leighty et al (2009) Inactive Stoinski et al (2000) 1 paper 1 paper Gruber et al (2000) Positive interactions Schmid (1995) Social (affiliation), negative Schmid et al (2001) 3 papers 5 papers interactions interactions Wells & Irwin (2008) (aggression) Posta et al (2013) Stoinski et al (2000) Wells & Irwin (2008) Vocalisations 1 papers 1 papers Soltis et al (2010) Other Whilde & Marples (2011) Play 1 papers 2 papers Schmid (1995) Body condition score, Assessment of assessment of mucous Ramanthan & Mallapur body membranes, skin (2008) NA NA condition/heath condition, eyesight, Godogama et al (1998) Physical (except feet) oedemas, wounds, Wemmer et al (2006) abscesses Toenail cracks, Assessment of presence of foot Stereotypies Haspeslagh et al (2013) NA NA foot health fissures, abscesses Dathe et al (1992) Fanson et al (2013) Salivary cortisol, serum Other Grand et al (2012) cortisol, faecal measures of Cortisol Laws et al (2007) Physiological glucometabolites, cortisol 8 papers 10 papers analysis Menargues et al (2008) urinary Personality Millspaugh et al (2007) glucometabolites Stereotypies Schmid et al (2001) Wilson et al (2004)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 69

Appendix B: Focus group teleconference script

Good morning/afternoon and thank you for taking the time to join our discussion of elephant welfare.

We are attempting to gain information about measures of elephant welfare and we have invited people who work with elephants to share their perceptions and ideas on this topic.

You were invited to participate because you have experience and knowledge of the care and management of captive elephants. We are relying on you to help us understand more about this topic because of your experiences.

Today we will be discussing current behavioural measures of elephant welfare, and resources that are important to elephants. There are no right or wrong answers. Please feel free to share your opinion, even if it differs from what others have said. Our discussion will last about an hour.

To explain the format of our discussion a little more, we are using a semi-structured interview method and working according to a specific script, so that the questions we ask are consistent across all of the discussion groups. So we would encourage you to have a dialogue with one another, but we ourselves are trying to only prompt you for further clarification on the information you’re providing. For this reason, there may be times during the discussion when you don’t hear from us, unless we would like to ask you to elaborate on an answer.

Before we start, I’d like to share a few ground rules that will help our discussion. Please speak clearly, and we ask that only one person should talk at a time. We are making an audio recording of the session because we don't want to miss any of your comments. If several people are talking at the same time, it will be difficult for us to hear you and we'll miss your comments. It’s important for us to hear everyone’s ideas and opinions and we would like everyone to participate.

We will be on a first name basis today, and in our later reports there will not be any names attached to comments. You may be assured of complete confidentiality.

First I’d like to ask each of you to tell me your name and your role at (name of zoo).

1. How would you visually assess elephant welfare?

Prompt questions if one or both not covered by the above: a) What behaviours do you think you might see if an elephant was experiencing good welfare?

b) What behaviours do you think you might see if an elephant was experiencing poor welfare?

c) Prompt Question [ONLY IF NEEDED TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION] :

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 70

Appendix B: Focus group teleconference script

For example, what behaviour would you use to tell if elephant welfare was positively or negatively affected by changes to their environment? For example, if:  a new elephant was introduced to the group  an existing group member left the group  the enclosure was modified  their feeding routine changed  a new training method or contact routine was adopted  keepers joined/left the team

If they request examples of welfare indicators can state, for example stereotypies, or sleep

2. What aspects of social group and composition are important for welfare?

a) What would you say is an ideal social group and composition?

If they request examples of social resources say number of animals, relatedness of group members?

3. What features of the environment are important to elephants?

a) Imagine you were given unlimited resources and funding and were asked to build an elephant enclosure. What would the enclosure look like? What would it contain? Possible prompts here: enrichment, flooring, methods of food supply, how much indoor and outdoor space, social.....

Then if there’s time:

b) If you could provide one resource for captive elephants that they don’t currently have access to, what would it be?  If they request examples of resources say: sand, wading pool

c) What kinds of environmental enrichment are beneficial to elephants?

4. Finally, is there anything else you would like to add, or anything you feel we have missed?

Once again, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. We’re conducting a number of teleconferences with people from different zoos. Once these are complete, our next steps will be to summarise our findings and produce a report; this will be sent your email address, if you provided one on the participant consent form.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 71

Appendix C: Results from focus group discussions on behavioural measures of captive elephant welfare

Participants described three broad categories of welfare indicators: behavioural; physical; and physiological. Details of the measures identified in each category are given below; results are summarised in Appendix Table C.1.

Behavioural indicators of welfare Behavioural indicators of welfare included natural behaviours, social interactions, abnormal behaviours and interactions with people. Natural behaviours included feeding, exploration, digging, swimming, mud wallowing, object play and scratching or rubbing. Generally, the presence of natural behaviours was thought to indicate good welfare, and the absence of natural behaviours indicated poor welfare.

Participants mentioned sleep and lying rest as measures of welfare. Time spent by elephants sleeping or lying down to sleep was seen as a positive indicator, and a lack of sleep or not lying down to sleep was seen as a negative indicator of welfare.

Positive social interactions that were mentioned included affiliative behaviour, play, and physical proximity.

Behavioural synchrony within the group, “feeding together, spending time together, using enrichment together”, was described as an indicator of good welfare, as well as members of the group supporting one another, or “banding together” in times of stress. Some participants also commented that the behaviour of the group as a whole can provide information about the welfare of individuals.

Negative social interactions included displacement, avoidance and aggression. If an elephant was seen isolating itself from the herd, or being regularly displaced by other group members, it was suggested that this might indicate poor welfare. There seemed to be agreement among participants that some aggression would be likely to occur within a social group (“you always get family squabbles”), but that excessive or hyper-aggression would be cause for concern.

A particularly interesting behavioural indicator suggested by participants was demeanour. This included body language and other, more qualitative measures of welfare described by keepers that can be difficult to quantify. One participant commented that elephants looking happy and enthusiastic was an indicator of good welfare.

Keepers also commented that their own knowledge of individual elephants in their care was important when assessing welfare.

Abnormal behaviours that were discussed included stereotypies, coprophagy and self-directed behaviours. Stereotypic behaviours that were mentioned included weaving, swaying, pacing and head bobbing. Some participants stated that they viewed stereotypic behaviour as an indicator of poor welfare. However, many participants commented that stereotypic behaviours may indicate that an elephant

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 72

Appendix C: Results from focus group discussions on behavioural measures of welfare

had experienced poor welfare in the past, rather than reflecting an elephant’s current welfare state. Indeed, a common theme of the discussions was that stereotypic behaviour, and welfare in general, may be substantially affected by experiences from an elephant’s past. Regardless of the origin of stereotypic behaviour, participants also commented on methods used to alleviate or reduce the occurrence of stereotypies.

Interactions with keepers were also mentioned as behavioural indicators of welfare. Negative interactions with keepers, or an elephant not responding to training or not co-operating with keepers was seen as a sign of poor welfare. Conversely, an elephant responding well to training, co-operating and being engaged in training was seen as a sign of good welfare.

Physical indicators of welfare The second category of welfare measures identified from the discussions was physical indicators of welfare. Poor foot condition, lameness, an unhealthy gait and an inability to lie down and get up were seen as indicators of poor welfare.

Body condition scoring or weight was a commonly mentioned physical indicator of welfare, with obesity in particular seen as an indicator of poor welfare. However, participants also commented that body condition scoring can be difficult to use and quite subjective. One participant described how a body scoring chart might not be appropriate for an elderly elephant; this was another instance in which a participant commented that welfare measures should be appropriate to the individual.

Physiological indicators of welfare The final category of welfare measures was physiological indicators of welfare. Physiological indicators were not as commonly discussed in the focus groups as behavioural or physical measures of welfare, most likely because the questions focused specifically on visual assessment of elephant welfare. Physiological indicators of welfare included measurement of stress hormones, and, in African elephants, temporal gland secretion. Participants did comment on the use of physiological indicators to assess welfare, and the benefits of being able to regularly take blood samples from their elephants to monitor physiological changes.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 73

Appendix C: Indicators of elephant welfare identified by focus group participants

Table C.1: Indicators of elephant welfare identified by focus group participants Type Category Example Behavioural Natural behaviour Digging Drinking Exploration Feeding Foraging Interaction with substrate Manipulating objects Mud wallowing Object play Scratching or rubbing Sleep or lying rest Swimming (immersed) Use of pool (excluding immersed swimming) Abnormal Non- Coprophagy behaviour stereotypic Self-directed Stereotypic Foot lifting Head banging Head bobbing Locomotory (eg pacing) Rocking Swaying Weaving Demeanour Alert Attitude Ear position Facial expressions Posture Guilty looks Looking happy Relaxed Trunk position People and training Change in responsiveness Cooperation with keepers Interaction with keepers Interaction with public Response to training Social interactions Affiliative behaviours Aggression Allomothering Avoidance Change in social interactions Compatibility Consistency of association Displacement Dominance Excessive aggression Food sharing

Low or decreased social Behavioural interaction (cont.) Play

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 74

Appendix C: Indicators of elephant welfare identified by focus group participants

Proximity Support Synchrony within group Trunk contact Vocalisation Rumble Trumpet Physical Able to get up and down Body condition score or weight Condition of teeth Eyes Fluidity of movement Foot condition Gait Injury Lameness Muscle tone Skin condition Tusk growth Physiological Cortisol and stress hormones Oestrous cycle Temporal gland draining

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 75

Appendix D: Finalised list of welfare measures to consider for inclusion in welfare assessment tool

Social interactions

o Behavioural Synchrony with group o Group cohesion o Consistency of Associations o Trunk position (exploratory or sensory) o Nursing o Affiliative behaviours . Proximity (close approach – within one elephant length) . Play (with conspecifics) . Touching temporal gland . Trunk interaction (trunk to trunk or trunk to body) . Allomothering . Food sharing o Agonistic behaviours . Displacement (approach/avoid/supplant from resource) . Avoidance . Aggression

Abnormal Repetitive Behaviours (ARBs) o Pacing/route tracing o Trunk swinging o Tusk banging o Head banging o Rocking o Bar biting o Swaying/weaving o Self-directed ARBs (e.g. pulling teat) o Pawing o Head bobbing o Trunk sucking

Arousal/anticipatory Behaviours o Alert o Head position o Ear position and movement o Foot swinging o Temporal gland secretion o Pedalling/trampling o Movement of tail o Inactive

Comfort (self-maintenance) o Dust bathing

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 76

Appendix D: Finalised list of welfare measures

o Washing o Use of pool o Mud wallowing o Swimming o Ear flapping o Scratching o Masturbation o Self-directed interaction

Activity budgets o Change from ‘normal’ behaviour o Active/inactive o Locomotion o Standing o Feeding . Eating . Foraging . Drinking o Resting . Lying to rest

Environmental interactions o Enrichment use o Object manipulation o Exploration o Responsiveness o Interaction with substrate o Manipulation of the environment o Digging o Object play o Preference/aversion

Cognitive measures o Tool use o Speed of learning o Response to novelty

Behaviours occurring under stress o Abnormal Repetitive Behaviours (ARB)s o Excessive aggression o Monitoring environment (olfactory, auditory, visual) o Clustering/bunching o Startle/vigilance response

Vocalisations o Rumble o Loud vocalisations o Trumpet o Greeting o Let’s go rumble

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 77

Appendix D: Finalised list of welfare measures

o Play vocalisations o Sexual vocalisations o Aggressive vocalisations

Qualitative o Contentment o Apathy/depression o Relaxed o Attitude o Alert o Looking ‘happy’ o Looking ‘guilty’ o Posture (alert, wary or relaxed) o Facial expression

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 78

Appendix E: Prototype Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool This document was given to keepers at each of the five trial zoos. It consisted of instructions, and the paperwork to be completed.

Keeper Instructions: The welfare assessment tool is broken down into three broad areas: 1. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment 2. Daytime activity 3. Night-time activity

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment Designed to gather subjective data about the current welfare state of each individual. This section is designed to be used as a point of comparison in future assessments, allowing for documentation of change over time. Observations should be conducted throughout the day on the first day of data collection (this will be on Tuesday - see data collection timetable below). Following each observation we would ask keepers to complete a short assessment of the individual. Observations must not be made within 30 minutes of an event which may substantially affect behaviour (e.g. feeding or being let inside/outside). If more than two keepers are assessing each elephant then both keepers must be conducting observations at the same time.

Daytime activity Designed to gather objective data on the day-time activity for each individual. Five minute observations (for a maximum of 4 elephants observed at a time) should be conducted at least four times per day (see data collection timetable below). On Thursday afternoon we would ask keepers to answer a series of questions about the activity of the individual(s) observed. Specific questions will be asked about the occurrence of the following activities:  Stereotypies  Comfort behaviours (e.g. dust bathing, rolling in sand, wallowing, interactions with water sources)  Feeding  Walking  General activity  Social and environmental interactions (e.g. interaction with the environment, time spent with conspecifics, affiliative and agonistic behaviour and play with objects and conspecifics)

Night-time Activity Designed to gather objective data of the night-time activity for each individual. The research technician and keepers will observe over-night video footage of the indoor enclosures.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 79

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Scan sampling (recording behaviours observed at set times throughout a sampling period, e.g. every 30 minutes) will be used to document the frequency of the following behaviours:  Stereotypies  Sleep  Feeding  Interacting with the environment  Walking  Comfort (self-maintenance)

Focal sampling (recording all occurrences of a behaviour throughout a sampling period) will be used to document the frequency of the following behaviour:  Excessive aggression

Prototype Tool

Section 1 – Qualitative Behavioural Assessment Keeper Tool Second Trial Observe animals for one minute 4 times Keepers to make a note by each term throughout the day (2 in the morning and 2 whether they like or dislike and why. There is in the afternoon) – answer a series of QBA a box in the left margin by each term. Please questions based on this short observation put a tick or cross in each box to indicate Notes: whether you like/dislike the term.  1 minute observations must be made 4 times per day (2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon). One observation must be made in each of the following time blocks: 1. 09:00 – 11:00 2. 11:00 – 13:00 3. 13:00 – 15:00 4. 15:00 – 17:00  Observations must not be made within 30 minutes (either before or after) of an event which may affect behaviour, e.g. feeding or being let inside/outside

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 80

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Live Observations – Qualitative Behavioural Assessment

Elephant: Date: Time: Weather:

Please complete this short Qualitative Behavioural assessment based on 1 minute of live observation of this individual.

Content: appears at ease, tranquil, seems satisfied

Not content Content

Depressed: seems lethargic, uninterested in physical environment or social companions, unwilling to engage when solicited, head posture hunched or slumped.

Not Depressed depressed

Relaxed: Peaceful, seems free from tension.

Not relaxed Relaxed

Uncomfortable: ill at ease without a clear context for any distress. Body, trunk, head postures un-relaxed and possibly changing frequently, appear fidgety.

Comfortable Uncomfortable

Fearful: Poised as if ready to flee, anticipatory defensive postures with ears, head and body. Head and trunk up, possibly in defensive herd star shape.

Not fearful Fearful

Agitated: a state of uncertainty which can be accompanied by physical restlessness and over-reaction to stimuli e.g. trumpeting. Scanning environment in a tense and anxious fashion.

Not agitated Agitated

Tense: body, head, trunk, held in a rigid fashion, un-relaxed reactions to stimuli.

Not tense Tense

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 81

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Frustrated: reacting to seeking a goal without success; can be violent (kicking, tusking, whacking with trunk, head pushing with body, head-on charge) towards others or objects or take the form of tossing objects about as a displacement activity. Angry body posture.

Not Frustrated frustrated

Wary: sometimes nervous, paused reaction to some stimuli, unwilling to move in or out of an area, may be accompanied by listening and smelling. It is a slow and calm behaviour.

Not wary Wary

Playful: engaged in a bout of object, locomotory or social play. Responds positively to solicitations for play.

Not playful Playful

Attentive: appears interested in the environment and/or engaged with, objects or

individuals, has a generally positive demeanour.

Indifferent Attentive

Distressed (upset): Animals seems to be suffering from a loss, may search the environment restlessly or without apparent purpose. May be accompanied by head shakes frequent distress rumbles or bellows

Not Distressed distressed

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 82

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Section 2 – Daytime activity Keeper Tool Second trial Based on the last 3 consecutive days with these elephants Keepers to make a note by (Tuesday to Thursday of data collection week) please each term whether they like or answer the questions below. dislike each question and why. Notes: There is a box in the left  5 minute observations* must be made at least 4 times margin by each term. Please per day (distributed throughout the day). At least one put a tick or cross in each box observation must be made in each of the following time to indicate whether you blocks: like/dislike the question. 1. 09:00 – 11:00 2. 11:00 – 13:00 3. 13:00 – 15:00 4. 15:00 – 17:00 *5 minute observations per 2 elephants observed  During the observation period the focal elephant(s) must be followed around to ensure a clear view is maintained wherever possible

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 83

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Live Observations – Daytime activity Please answer the following questions based on the live observations you have made over the last 3 days (Tuesday to Thursday of data collection week):

Elephant: Date: Time: Weather:

Section 1: Stereotypies 1.1. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has performed a stereotypy...

a. Always (few, if any, stereotypy-free intervals) b. Very frequently (virtually every hour) c. Frequently (daily, multiple times per day) d. Occasionally (daily but infrequent) e. Rarely (not daily) f. Never

1.2. If you have seen this elephant stereotype please give a breakdown of the stereotypies seen, their approximate frequency and the approximate time of day they occurred

Description Frequency Time of Location (using above day scale)

1.3. Do the stereotypies this elephant performs ever interfere with their behaviour? a. Stereotypies do not interrupt flow of behaviour b. Stereotypies occasionally interrupt flow of behaviour c. Stereotypies frequently interrupt flow of behaviour d. Frequently interrupt flow of behaviour and occasionally disrupt intended action e. Stereotypies frequently disrupt intended action

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 84

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

1.4. Can the stereotypies this elephant performs be interrupted? Yes/No/Unknown

If yes, please describe what they are interrupted by:

Section 2: Comfort Behaviour 2.1. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has dust bathed… a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

2.2. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has rolled in sand… a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

2.3. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has wallowed… a. More than once a day during my observations b. Around once a day during my observations c. Never during my observations

2.4. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has interacted with water features (pools, fountains, showers or similar)… a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe the interaction and type of water feature when most of this interaction occurred

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 85

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Section 3: Feeding 3.1. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant feeding... a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations

3.2. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Rarely Forage for forage food all and/or only the time it feed at is free to scheduled do so feed times

Section 4: Walking

4.1. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant was walking (but not pacing) during its free time… a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations

Section 5: Activity

5.1. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Spend most Engaging in of its day activities waiting for completely scheduled independent events of the scheduled events

5.2. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant was standing still (but not resting)…

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 86

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

Section 6: Social and Environmental Interactions

6.1. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant interacting with the environment (investigating or interacting with things in the environment other than food with the trunk...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with what they were interacting

6.2. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Avoid other Spend time elephants near or every time it approach other is free to do elephants so every time it is free to do so

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 87

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

6.3. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant engaging in affiliative behaviour (any positive social interaction, e.g. touching another elephant in a non-aggressive manner) ...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how

6.4. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant engaging in agonistic behaviour (any negative social interaction, behaving in a manner which causes harm or potential harm to conspecifics, e.g. displaces, displays, chases, bites) ...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how

6.5. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant engaging in object play (throwing or kicking debris or an object around in a playful interaction. This can include environmental enrichment) ...

a. More than once a day during my observations b. Around once a day during my observations c. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe the interaction with the object

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 88

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

6.6. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant playing with conspecifics (engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, trunk wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship) ...

a. More than once a day during my observations b. Around once a day during my observations c. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how

Section 7 Please provide details of any other observations you have made of this animal in the last 3 days which you believe are of importance

Section 8

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 89

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Please answer the following questions based on your general experience from working with this elephant:

8.1. When was the last time you saw this elephant come across a new or unexpected situation? What was the situation and what was their reaction?

8.2. Please describe in the table below any vocalisations this individual has made and the contexts in which they occurred

Vocalisation – Rumble, Trumpet or Other Context (please provide short description)

Section 9 At the current point in time... Please place a mark, line or circle along the line where you feel is appropriate for each aspect of health and welfare for this individual.

9.1. Mental health

Worst imaginable Best imaginable for any elephant anywhere 9.2. Physical health Best imaginable for Worst imaginable any elephant anywhere 9.3. Overall Welfare Best imaginable for Worst imaginable any elephant anywhere Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 90

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Comments

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 91

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Defra Elephant Welfare Project Definition of Terms for Behaviour Ethogram

Sleeping/Resting: A rapidly reversible state of immobility and greatly reduced sensory responsiveness, an inactive state where no obvious activity is being performed  Standing rest: Upright and stationary with 3 or 4 feet on the ground. Not performing any other behaviour. Eyes may be closed. End of trunk usually curled on floor. Individual may be leaning on an object (e.g. enclosure bars, a wall or a sand pile) or conspecific.  Lying rest: Lateral recumbence, no other behaviours are being performed

Stereotyping: Repetitive behaviour with no obvious purpose. May include but is not limited to the following:  Head bobbing: backward and forward or in an arc, walking in circles  Swaying/weaving: Side to side or back and forth repetitive swaying of the body  Pacing: Walking repeatedly along the same route in an unvarying, repetitive pattern  Leg swing: Standing still repeatedly swinging one front leg back and forth  Foot lifting: Standing still repeatedly lifting one foot in the air  Rocking: Rocking back and forth transferring weight from hind to front legs  Tusk banging: Repetitive banging or rubbing of the tusks on objects (e.g. enclosure bars or logs)  Bar biting: Chewing or gnawing on enclosure bars

Comfort: Any self-maintenance or grooming behaviour. May include but is not limited to:  Rubbing: Rubbing the body against an object  Wallowing: Lying down and rolling in mud  Rolling: Lying down and rolling in dirt or sand  Scratching: Scratching the body with trunk or foot - this can include using the trunk to scratch/feel gently around the skin, eye or ear  Scratching with tool: Scratching the body with a tool, e.g. branch or stick  Throwing straw on self: Throwing soft objects such as grass or straw onto the body using the trunk  Dust bath: Spraying mud, dust or sand on the body  Water bath: Spraying water on the body  Body slap: Hitting of own body with tail or trunk, appears to be a means of removing an insect or other irritant

Walking: Taking two or more steps in any direction in a non-repetitive pattern. Only one foot is removed from the ground at any one time. Social: Any positive or neutral interaction with another elephant. May include but is not limited to:  Leaning: Leaning on another elephant  Standing: Standing underneath or standing above another elephant  Trunk-mouth: Putting the trunk in the mouth of another elephant

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 92

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

 Touching: Touching another elephant with the trunk in a non-aggressive manner  Tail: Holding the tail of another elephant with the trunk or underneath a leg  Trunk-trunk: Intertwining of trunks between two elephants  Approach: Moving in a non-aggressive manner, within one body length of another elephant  Climb: Placing at least one foot on top of another elephant - usually one that is lying down  Offer food: One elephant pushes a pile of food towards another elephant, looks like an offering of the resource  Trunk lifting: Trunk is outstretched and raised towards an approaching individual  Sitting on an elephant: Sitting in a crouched position on top of another elephant which is in lying rest  Rubbing elephant: Rubbing the body against another elephant  Playing with an elephant: Engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, trunk wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship

Interaction with the environment: investigating or interacting with things in the environment (other than food). May include but is not limited to:  Playing with an object: Throwing or kicking debris or an object around in a playful interaction  Object manipulation: Examination or manipulation of an object with the trunk and/or foot  Environmental investigation: Investigating things in the environment (other than food) with the trunk - looks like the individual may be 'sniffing' at the ground or objects

Feeding: the process of locating and consuming food stuffs  Eating: Manipulation (including breaking up of food stuffs using the trunk or foot) and consumption of food  Foraging: The process of searching for and collecting food stuffs using the trunk and/or foot - may include kicking up grasses, shaking the food in the trunk or beating against the leg

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 93

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Section 3: Overnight Footage Keeper Tool Second trial Scan sampling (recording behaviours observed Keepers to watch video footage and at set times throughout a sampling period, e.g. document each behaviour which is every three or five minutes) will be used to occurring during the scan. Keepers to document the frequency of the following provide feedback after the second trial. behaviours:  Stereotypies  Sleep  with others or alone  Feeding  Interacting with environment  Walking  Comfort (self-maintenance)  Out of sight  Other

Focal sampling (recording all occurrences of a behaviour throughout a sampling period) will be used to document the frequency of the following behaviour:  Excessive aggression

Notes  Observations of all individuals must be made every 30 minutes from 9pm until keepers arrival the following morning (i.e. 21:00, 21:30, 22:00, etc)  Keepers may observe either a specific elephant on all cameras within the elephant house or all of the elephants on one camera within the elephant house. Between the team all elephants must be observed on all cameras throughout the night.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 94

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

Name of elephant: Date: Behaviours Observed Feeding Sleeping or resting Stereotypy Walking Comfort Interaction with Social Other (describe) Out of Time Standing or Alone or Environment view Lying with others

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

00:00

00:30

01:00

01:30

02:00

02:30

03:00

03:30

04:00

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 95

Appendix E: Prototype elephant welfare assessment tool

04:30

05:00

05:30

06:00

06:30

07:00

07:30

08:00

08:30

09:00

Comments

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 96

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results from Final Report, Section 2.4 (Assess concurrent validity, reliability and feasibility of the prototype monitoring tool) F.1 Methods Ethograms were compiled from a number of sources [7, 89, 100, 107, 124, 138, 150, 151, 158-160], and were then refined to focus on the behaviours being assessed in the newly developed welfare tool. This was done to enable a more direct comparison between behaviour recorded by the keepers using the welfare assessment tool, and behaviour recorded using the ethograms.

Behaviour for the daytime footage covered: Stereotypy, Play, Maintenance, Interactions with water, Interactions with the environment, Feeding, Locomotion, Rest, Affiliative behaviour, Agonistic behaviour and Proximity to others. Daytime footage (09:00-17:00) was scored using scan sampling every 5 minutes, night-time footage (18:00-08:00) was scored every 3 minutes for all behaviour except Standing rest and Lying rest, which were scored continuously. This methodology was found to provide an accurate representation of the proportion of time performing behaviour measured, based on evidence from a previous study which had scored behaviour continuously [109].

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 97

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Table F.1: Daytime ethogram Category Behaviour Definition Rocking Repetitive bobbing of the head and/or body Weaving Side to side or back and forth repetitive swaying of the body Trunk tossing Vigorous swaying of trunk from side to side Head pressing Pressing head up against an object with no obvious purpose Pacing Walking repeatedly along the same route in an unvarying, repetitive pattern Leg swing Standing still repeatedly swinging one front leg back and forth Foot lift Standing still repeatedly lifting one foot in the air Stereotypical Weight transfer Rocking back and forth transferring weight from hind to front legs Tusk banging Repetitive banging or rubbing of the tusks on objects (e.g. enclosure bars or logs) Bar biting Chewing or gnawing on enclosure bars Throwing faeces Tossing faecal material into air or on self Taking a few steps forward then tracing the route by taking a few steps backward. Believed to be initially caused by being chained over prolonged periods by a front and back leg Linear pacing simultaneously; an elephant will walk forwards until restrained by the back leg chain and then walk backwards until restrained by the front leg chain. Wallowing Lying down and rolling in mud, dirt or sand Throwing straw on self Throwing soft objects such as grass or straw onto the body using the trunk Maintenance Dust bath Spraying mud, dust or sand on the body other shake, rub, stretch, scratch, scratch with tool, body slap Bathe Standing or lying in water up to the depth of the belly or deeper Spray body Spraying water on the body Spray out Spraying water outwards using the trunk Interaction with Water Clearing water Moving the trunk backwards and forwards across a water surface prior to drinking Swimming Movement within a body of water where the feet are not touching the bottom Engaging in active play with a water source, may involve rolling around within a body of Playing with a water source water or manipulating a water source with the trunk Other Manipulation (including breaking up of food stuffs using the trunk or foot) and consumption Eating or Wadge Feeding/ Foraging/Drinking of food; or wadge (Chewing of food stuffs to extract juice and sugars, not accompanied by

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 98

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

ingestion)

The process of searching for and collecting food stuffs using the trunk and/or foot - may Foraging include kicking up grasses, shaking the food in the trunk or beating against the leg Taking water straight into the mouth, usually kneeling at the edge of a water body - more common in calves Drinking Water is drawn into the trunk and then sprayed into the mouth - more common in juveniles and adults Taking two or more steps in any direction in a non-repetitive pattern. Only one foot is removed from the ground at any one time. The way an elephant 'walks' may be affected by Walk many factors, e.g. reproductive status or the context of the situation, i.e. during conflict (see relevant sections for more details) As with 'walk' but head and trunk movements become more pronounced, the head moves Exaggerated walk up and down with the rhythm of the walk and the trunk will swing side to side Locomotion A faster paced version of walking; more than one foot is removed from the ground at any Run one time. Spin: Occurring on land or in water; the rotation of the body in a circular motion. Other (including spin, side step) Side step: A sideways movement, achieved by the elephant crossing one leg over the front of the other Standing Upright and stationary, 3 or 4 feet on the ground. Upright and stationary with 3 or 4 feet on the ground. Not performing any other behaviour. Standing rest Eyes may be closed. End of trunk usually curled on floor. Individual may be leaning on an Resting object (e.g. enclosure bars, a wall or a sand pile) or conspecific. Lying rest Lateral recumbence, no other behaviours are being performed Object throw Using the trunk to throw an object at another elephant or person Examination or manipulation of an object with the trunk and/or foot - often seen when an Object manipulation elephant is manipulating environmental enrichment to gain access to a food reward Investigating things in the environment (other than food) with the trunk - looks like the Environmental investigation Interaction with Environment individual may be 'sniffing' at the ground or objects Using an object to help the elephant obtain an immediate goal, e.g. using logs to gain Tool usage access to food resources Tusking Digging with tusks into ground, or rubbing of tusks on logs Affiliative touch (with trunk) trunk in mouth of other,touching any area other, holding tail of other, intertwining trunks, Social Affiliative touch (not with trunk) leaning on another, rubbing body against other,nudge other elephant, sit or stand on other Trunk lifting trunk outstretched and raised towards an approaching individual

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 99

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Tusking Poking or jabbing at another elephant with the tusk Move towards another elephant with the head held high, pace usually quickens as individual Charge gets closer to the target elephant, can lead to pursuit of another elephant Bite Biting of the body, trunk or tail of another elephant Strike out or hit an elephant or object with a foot in a seemingly aggressive manner - note Kick object may include enclosure bars or kicking of sand towards another elephant Agonistic Strike Hitting another elephant with the trunk or tail One elephant forces or pushes against the body (usually the rump) of another elephant, Push resulting in the elephant that is being pushed moving at least two steps Two elephants standing facing in opposite directions with foreheads pushing against each Stand off other Smack Hitting the trunk on the floor in an aggressive manner, may be accompanied by a 'snort' Food stealing Taking food from another elephant Throwing or kicking debris or an object around in a playful interaction. Sometimes more Playing with an object than one elephant will engage in play with the same object. Note, this can include environmental enrichment Play Engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, trunk Playing with a conspecific wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship**** Proximity to others elephants Proximity <1 or >1 elephant body length from another elephant

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 100

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Table F.2: Night time ethogram Category Behaviour Definition Upright and stationary with 3 or 4 feet on the ground. Not performing any other Standing rest behaviour. Eyes may be closed. End of trunk usually curled on floor. Individual may be leaning on an object (e.g. enclosure bars, a wall or a sand pile) or conspecific. Lying rest Lateral recumbence, no other behaviours are being performed Clearing an area (usually prior to lying rest), wiping sand with the trunk, moving Clearing objects or faeces out of the way Changing sides Changing from lying rest on one side to the other without fully standing Resting Reflex jerk reaction to return the elephant to a standing position when the legs ‘give Jerk way’ during bouts of standing rest One hind leg crossed in front of the other whilst the elephant is standing. The leg Cross legs which is crossed often does not touch the ground. A position which occurs between standing and lying rest, elephants move into a Squatting seated position before stretching out the front legs to lie down Kneel Front legs are extended forwards whilst back legs are bent, in a kneeling position Rocking Repetitive bobbing of the head and/or body Weaving Side to side or back and forth repetitive swaying of the body Trunk tossing Vigorous swaying of trunk from side to side Head pressing Pressing head up against an object with no obvious purpose Pacing Walking repeatedly along the same route in an unvarying, repetitive pattern Leg swing Standing still repeatedly swinging one front leg back and forth Foot lift Standing still repeatedly lifting one foot in the air Stereotypical Weight transfer Rocking back and forth transferring weight from hind to front legs Tusk banging Repetitive banging or rubbing of the tusks on objects (e.g. enclosure bars or logs) Bar biting Chewing or gnawing on enclosure bars Throwing faeces Tossing faecal material into air or on self Taking a few steps forward then tracing the route by taking a few steps backward. Believed to be initially caused by being chained over prolonged periods by a front Linear pacing and back leg simultaneously; an elephant will walk forwards until restrained by the back leg chain and then walk backwards until restrained by the front leg chain. Standing alert, often near (within two elephant body lengths) of gates or enclosure Loitering Anticipatory bars prior to an event (e.g. feeding, moving inside, etc.) Maintenance Bathe Standing or lying in water up to the depth of the belly or deeper

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 101

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Shake Shaking of the head or body, apparently to remove dead matter or insects Defecate Voiding of faeces Urinate Voiding of urine Rub Rubbing the body against an object Stretch Stretching of one or more legs out straight Wallowing Lying down and rolling in mud, dirt or sand Scratching the body with trunk or foot - this can include using the trunk to Scratching scratch/feel gently around the skin, eye or ear Scratching with tool Scratching the body with a tool, e.g. branch or stick

Throwing straw on self Throwing soft objects such as grass or straw onto the body using the trunk

Dust bath Spraying mud, dust or sand on the body Water bath Spraying water on the body Slow rhythmic flapping of the ears - a thermoregulatory behaviour when particularly Ear flap hot Hitting of own body with tail or trunk, appears to be a means of removing an insect Body slap or other irritant Spray Spraying water outwards using the trunk Kicking or scraping dust or dirt backward/behind the elephant. May also occur as an Digging aggressive behaviour, or prior to engaging in lying rest A non-maternal female 'baby sits' a calf, i.e. performs behaviours typical of a mother - a whole range of behaviours which contribute to the process of protecting or Allomothering supporting a calf by gentle touching with the trunk, tusks, foot or tail (e.g. lifting a sleeping or new-born calf to its feet, waiting for the calf to keep up when elephants are walking, etc.) When a threat is perceived adult females will form a tight defensive circle - calves in Bunching the middle, whilst all adults face outwards with heads up and ears spread. This may be accompanied by vocalisations. The process of an adult elephant pushing or pulling a calf under their belly, usually Protecting Maternal to protect the calf Hiding Occurring only in young calves, standing next to or underneath an older elephant Occurring only in calves and young infants, milk is suckled from the mothers teat. Suckling The trunk is lifted back over the infants head to allow the mouth access to the teat. An infant calf calling to the mother for milk; walking parallel to the mother usually Solicit suckling pushing against her legs or pushing the trunk near to the teat, calf places trunk around mother's leg, touches nipple. Nursing Mother stands for a calf to suckle

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 102

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

The adult female does not move a foreleg forward when the calf approaches to Block suckle. In some cases the female will pull her front leg backwards to block access to the teat. Tail Holding the tail of another elephant using the trunk The calf will reach into the trunk of other elephants, usually the mother, during Food sampling feeding. It seems that this behaviour is a means of sampling what the mother is eating. Manipulation (including breaking up of food stuffs using the trunk or foot) and Eating consumption of food The process of searching for and collecting food stuffs using the trunk and/or foot - Foraging may include kicking up grasses, shaking the food in the trunk or beating against the leg Taking water straight into the mouth, usually kneeling at the edge of a water body - Drinking - mouth more common in calves Water is drawn into the trunk and then sprayed into the mouth - more common in Drinking - trunk juveniles and adults Feeding Wadge Chewing of food stuffs to extract juice and sugars, not accompanied by ingestion Clearing water Moving the trunk backwards and forwards across a water surface prior to drinking Elephant with a food source turns its rump to an approaching elephant to create a Resource holding block between the approaching elephant and the food source A usually more dominant elephant taking food away from a usually more Stealing subordinate elephant Kicking or scraping dust or dirt backward/behind the elephant. May also occur as an Digging aggressive behaviour, or prior to engaging in lying rest Pushing food around with trunk or foot - usually done when an elephant is moving a Pushing food food resource away from an approaching elephant

Swim Movement within a body of water where the feet are not touching the bottom Taking two or more steps in any direction in a non-repetitive pattern. Only one foot is removed from the ground at any one time. The way an elephant 'walks' may be Walk affected by many factors, e.g. reproductive status or the context of the situation, i.e. during conflict (see relevant sections for more details) As with 'walk' but head and trunk movements become more pronounced, the head Exaggerated walk Locomotion moves up and down with the rhythm of the walk and the trunk will swing side to side A faster paced version of walking; more than one foot is removed from the ground Run at any one time. Spin Occurring on land or in water; the rotation of the body in a circular motion. A sideways movement, achieved by the elephant crossing one leg over the front of Side step the other

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 103

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Leaning Leaning on another elephant Standing Standing over another elephant - usually one that is lying down or young Trunk-mouth Putting the trunk in the mouth of another elephant Touching another elephant, not the mouth or genitals, with the trunk in a non- Touching aggressive manner Trunk-genitals Touching the genital area of another elephant with the trunk Tail Holding the tail of another elephant with the trunk or underneath a leg Trunk-trunk Intertwining of trunks between two elephants Rubbing-elephant Rubbing the body against another elephant Approach Moving in a non-aggressive manner, within one body length of another elephant Affiliative/social Climb Placing at least one foot on top of another elephant - usually one that is lying down Gentle physical contact between two elephants which may be head-head, head- Nudge body or body-body (not including touching with trunk) Two elephants walking side by side in a non-aggressive manner, for 3 or more Parallel walk steps One elephant walks closely behind (within 2 elephant body lengths) of another Follow elephant One elephant pushes a pile of food towards another elephant, looks like an offering Offer food of the resource Trunk lifting Trunk is outstretched and raised towards an approaching individual Elephant turns to present posterior and walk slowly backwards into another Back toward individual Sitting on an elephant Sitting in a crouched position on top of another elephant which is in lying rest

Trunk in own mouth Holding trunk in own mouth - a behaviour frequently seen in young elephants Comfort Trunk under body Holding trunk under own body Own tail Holding own tail in trunk Throwing or kicking debris or an object around in a playful interaction. Sometimes Playing with an object more than one elephant will engage in play with the same object. Note, this can include environmental enrichment**** Engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, Play Playing with a conspecific trunk wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship**** Engaging in active play with a water source, may involve rolling around within a Playing with a water source body of water or manipulating a water source with the trunk****

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 104

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

An interaction between two elephants which leads to the initiation of play within 10 Initiating play seconds Tusking Digging with tusks into ground, or rubbing of tusks on logs Running' with a loose, floppy gait, head is held low and trunk and ears are flapping Floppy run around. Often accompanied by trumpeting. Strike out or hit an elephant or object with a foot in a seemingly aggressive manner Kick - note object may include enclosure bars or kicking of sand towards another elephant Movement of one elephant results in another elephant leaving its location (within 10 Displacement seconds) - usually occurs when a more dominant elephant approaches a more subordinate individual Strike Hitting another elephant with the trunk or tail Chase Charge leading to pursuit of another elephant One elephant forces or pushes against the body (usually the rump) of another Push elephant, resulting in the elephant that is being pushed moving at least two steps Two elephants standing facing in opposite directions with foreheads pushing Stand off against each other Hitting the trunk on the floor in an aggressive manner, may be accompanied by a Smack 'snort' A lunging motion followed by physical contact, used to prevent another elephant Lunge standing up Avoiding or shying away from elephants or people; the individual turns their head, Agonistic Avoidance rump or whole body away from the particular elephant or person Avoiding or shying away from elephants or people; the individual either walks Retreat forwards away from or backwards away from a particular elephant or person Tusking Poking or jabbing at another elephant with the tusk Head oriented towards another elephant, human or change in the environment, ears Directed ear fold extended, horizontal fold or crease across the middle of the ear Head oriented towards another elephant, human or change in the environment, ears Directed ear flap held out perpendicular to the head, flapping Head oriented towards another elephant, human or change in the environment, no Freeze movements are occurring, elephants looks 'alert' Move towards another elephant with the head held high, pace usually quickens as Charge individual gets closer to the target elephant head oriented towards another elephant, human or change in the environment, Directed trunk swing violently swinging the trunk around in an aggressive display Facing another elephant in an aggressive posture; head held high, ears wide or Aggressive display: standing flapping

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 105

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Display of dominance while walking; head bobbing up and down or side to side, Aggressive display: walking ears wide or flapping During a conflict situation an individual may redirect their aggression onto another Redirected aggression individual or object, e.g. uprooting trees or throwing objects Two elephants directly facing each other, standing as tall as possible, heads raised Size up and ears spread wide An elephant places its body between the aggressor and the target (i.e. 'protecting' Intervening the target elephant from the attack) Bite Biting of the body, trunk or tail of another elephant Trunk Curl Curling and stretching the trunk Ear extension Casual extension of the ears either partly or fully - no other change in posture Other Communications Ear lift Casual elevation of the ears - no other change in posture Slow rhythmic flapping of the ears - a thermoregulatory behaviour when particularly Ear flap hot Object throw Using the trunk to throw an object at another elephant or person Examination or manipulation of an object with the trunk and/or foot - often seen Object manipulation when an elephant is manipulating environmental enrichment to gain access to a food reward Investigating things in the environment (other than food) with the trunk - looks like Other Environmental investigation the individual may be 'sniffing' at the ground or objects Using an object to help the elephant obtain an immediate goal, e.g. using logs to Tool usage gain access to food resources Out of sight Out of sight of the observer

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 106

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

F1.2 Data analysis of reliability and validity The following types of reliability and validity were assessed: 1. inter-rater reliability and test re-test reliability (which was completed by the same rater so could also be considered intra-rater reliability) using repeat scorings from multiple raters; 2. internal consistency by examining correlations between questions that grouped together (groups first identified by component analysis); 3. face validity and feasibility based on keeper and expert feedback; 4. construct validity by testing a series of predictions as to which questions or measures in the tool would be correlated (positively or negatively); and concurrent validity by comparing the questions about reported frequency of behaviour, or frequencies observed at night-time, to the proportion of the same behaviour observed in the ethogram analysis.

All analysis was conducted in the statistical programme R. [161] A summary of tests performed, and criteria for accepting each type of reliability or validity is shown in Table F.3.

Table F.3: Overview of data analysis used to assess reliability and validity Test QBA Questions Night observations Face validity (and Keeper and expert feedback feasibility) Data reduction Principle Components Analysis (PCA) Not done Internal Cronbach’s alpha (criteria > 0.6) Not done reliability/consistency Inter-rater reliability For continuous scores: Bland Altman statistics (criteria <6% Test re-test/Intra-rater points outside limits of agreement) & Pearson’s correlations reliability (criteria r >0.4) For ordinal data criteria : Kappa coefficients (>0.4) and polychoric correlations (rho>0.4) Construct validity Made predictions of associations between elements of the tool and tested using spearman’s correlations, with criteria of rho > |0.3| Predictions were made within each part of the tool and between parts of the tool and elements, tested with spearman’s correlations, with criteria of rho > |0.3| Associations between tool elements and overall welfare ratings, tested using glms with overall rating as the outcome and elements of the tool as predictors (Criteria: element of tool is significant (P<0.05) predictor)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 107

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Concurrent criterion Not done General Linear Models (proportion of time validity in relevant behaviour over three days from ethogram analysis as outcome variable and element of tool as predictor). If not, significant effects of zoo, variance in time performing behaviour, species and sex were investigated (as fixed effects) for daytime. For night-time observations models were repeated but using the proportion of behaviour on the same night rather than across three nights. (Criteria: element of tool is significant (P<0.05) predictor of relevant behaviour measured by ethogram.)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 108

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

F.2 Results Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA)

One grouping was identified from the adjectives used in the QBA, which we considered to measure “Ill at ease in the environment”. This grouping or component was comprised of low ratings on Content (loading -0.553) and Relaxed (-0.547) and higher ratings on Uncomfortable (0.283), Agitated (0.352), Tense (0.221) and Frustrated (0.309). This was the only component to be established and comprised 45.30% of the variance. This component had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.902, which is considered a high level of internal consistency. This component was found to be reliably completed on different occasions and by different raters, as were two additional QBA adjectives, Playful and Wary (see Appendix, Table F.4).

Construct validity of the QBA section of the tool was supported: from 16 predictions made of expected associations between ratings on the QBA adjectives, 15 were supported with Spearman’s correlation coefficients of (+ or -) 0.3 or above. The one prediction which was not supported was an expected negative association between Depressed and Attentive (the correlation coefficient was 0.17).

In summary, a consistent grouping of six adjectives, and a further two single adjectives, rated using QBA were reliable across and between raters, and showed construct validity.

Daytime behaviour questions

Three groupings of daytime behaviour questions were identified using Principle Component Analysis (PCA):

 The first grouping, or component 1, included the questions: o Q3.1.Feeding frequency (loading 0.308), o Q3.2. Feeding at scheduled time only (0.518), o Q5.1. Waiting for scheduled events (0.658) and o Q6.6 Playing with others (0.484). Henceforth this component is referred to as to “Dependence on routine”. Stereotypy frequency (Q1.1.) also grouped with component 1, but it only just reached the minimum criteria for grouping and it was felt it was important to assess this question separately. Component one’s internal reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.67, which is acceptable.

 The second grouping, or component 2, was comprised of: o Q2.3. Wallowing frequency (0.262), o Q6.1 Interactions with environment (0.417), and o Q6.3. Affiliative behaviour (0.414). o Henceforth this component is referred to as “Engaging positively with the environment”.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 109

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

o Component two’s internal reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.68, which is considered acceptable.  Component 3 was composed of questions related to activity, including: o Q4.1. Walking frequency (0.261), and o Q5.2. Standing still frequency (-0.387). Henceforth this component is referred to as “Activity”.

Time spent with or apart from other elephants loaded on all three components, and because of this, it was kept separate. Component three’s internal reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82, which is considered good.

Out of sixteen questions assessed for test-retest/intra- and inter- rater reliability, only three questions did not reach an acceptable level of reliability (see Table F.4). These were Q2.4. Interaction with water, Q5.1 Walking frequency and Q5.2 Standing frequency.

With respect to construct validity, seven out of nine predictions were supported with Spearman’s correlation coefficients of (+ or -) 0.3 or above (Appendix Table F.7). Two predicted associations which were not supported were: less Standing/more Interaction with the environment (correlation= -0.05) and more Affiliative behaviour/more Play with others (correlation=0.27). It is worth noting that the question used to measure standing behaviour was not found to be scored reliably. Affiliative behaviour/Play with others narrowly missed the threshold for supporting predicted correlations (set at correlation>0.3).

The majority of questions were found to be associated with the relevant behaviour observed in the ethogram analysis of behaviour, meeting the criterion for concurrent validity for these questions (see Table F.5). Exceptions to this were: Q2.1. Dust- bathing; Q2.2. Sand rolling; Q2.4 Water interactions; Q4.1 Walking frequency; Q5.2. Standing frequency; and Q6.5. Object play. For dust-bathing and object play, the high variance in performance of these behaviours over three days observed would seem to explain the lack of concordance between the ethogram and questions in the assessment tool. For walking, there were effects of zoo, which seems to indicated that different zoos answered this question differently, but it was answered consistently within each zoo. Concordance was higher for zoos compared to safari parks. Water interaction and object play were rarely observed, which might account for the lack of agreement.

In summary, two consistent groupings of questions and a further five questions were reliable across and between raters. Overall, this part of the tool showed construct validity, and nine out of 15 elements met the criteria for concurrent validity.

Night-time observations

Of the nine elements of the night-time observations section of the welfare tool that could be assessed for reliability, seven met the criteria for being reliable (see Appendix Table F.4). Some behaviours recorded from the night-time observations were so rare they could not be assessed for reliability (Comfort behaviour and Interactions with the environment). Standing rest alone, Walking and Social behaviour could not be reliably assessed in the tool, but Feeding, Standing rest with

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 110

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool others, Lying rest (alone or with others), Stereotypy and Length of the longest lying bout could be assessed reliably. Three out of four predictions of correlations between elements of the night-time observations were supported. These provide construct validity.

The one prediction that was not supported was that stereotypy would be negatively correlated with interactions with the environment. Both these behaviours were rarely observed, and this may account for the lack of correlation seen.

Four of the nine elements were associated with the proportion of behaviour recorded over three nights of detailed ethogram video analysis (see Appendix Table F.6.). A further five were associated with behaviour shown on the same night as the observations in the tool. This demonstrates that this part of the tool does represent the behaviour shown on that particular night, but not necessarily behaviour over a longer time frame (three nights).

In summary, Lying with others. Lying apart from others, Feeding, Interactions with the environment and Length of the longest lying period reached acceptable levels of reliability and validity, but the lack of stability in such behaviour over different nights needs to be taken into consideration.

Tool as a whole

Predictions were made for associations between elements of different parts of the tool (see Appendix Table F.7). Between QBA and daytime questions, eight out of twelve predicted associations were supported. Those that were not supported included associations between: QBA Playful and Q 6.5 Play objects: +ve predicted (correlation coefficient =-0.06); QBA Attentive and Q 6.1.Interaction environment:+ve predicted (0.28); QBA Depressed and Q 5.2. Standing +ve predicted (0.03); QBA Relaxed and Q 2.1 Dust-bathing +ve predicted (-0.56). Between QBA and night-time observations, four of ten predictions were supported; between daytime questions and night-time observations, one of three predictions which could be tested were supported. The latter related to predicted associations between day-time questions on affiliative and agonistic behaviour and correlations with night time Lying apart from others. One of these was supported; the other two were in the direction predicted but did not quite reach the criteria for significance.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 111

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool Table F.4: Reliability statistics for the three parts of the behavioural welfare tool Inter-rater reliability RA 2 vs keeper 2 Test retest keeper 2 vs keeper 3 Element of welfare tool (range / % of points outside mean difference Correlation % points outside limits mean difference Correlation Reliability maximum) limits of agreement /critical difference coefficient of agreement /critical difference coefficient accepted QBA Distressed (0-6.5/10) 4% 1.06/2.13 0.43 9% 0.43/3.14 0.20 NO Fearful (0-9.4/10) 2% 1.10/2.46 0.51 7% 0.42/3.40 0.35 NO Attentive(0-10/10) 6% 1.08/4.17 0.65 4% 0.33/7.80 0.01 NO Playful (0-10/10) 5% 1.13/3.13 0.59 5% 0.41/3.08 0.61 YES Depressed (0-6.6/10) 7% 1.01/2.62 0.35 6% 0.39/2.95 0.17 NO Wary (0-6.6/10) 6% 1.02/2.79 0.50 5% 0.13/2.91 0.41 YES At ease with the environment 2% 1.12/2.69 0.58 4% 0.22/3.43 0.59 YES (content/relaxed/uncomfortable agitated/tense/frustrated) Day-time questions *Kappa for ordinal variables 1.1. Stereotypy (1-4/6) *0.56 0.78 *0.80 0.96 YES 2.1. Dustbathing (1-5/7) *0.85 0.83 *0.03 0.17 NO 2.2. Sand rolling (1-5/7) *0.85 0.79 *0.74 0.73 YES 2.4. Water interactions (1-4/7) *0.35 0.47 *0.40 0.19 NO 4.1 Walking (1-5/6) *0.04 0.04 *0.38 0.74 NO 5.2. Standing still (1-6/7) *0.09 0.17 *0.40 0.59 NO 6.2. Avoid others (1.6-10/10) 3% 0.44/2.40 0.80 3% 0.63/3.13 0.75 YES 6.4. Agonistic(1-5/7) *0.58 0.76 *0.62 0.87 YES 6.5. Object play(1-3/3) *0.41 0.61 *0.55 0.78 YES Dependence on routine(0.20.7/1) 0% <0.01/0.17 0.75 0% 0.03./0.21 0.67 YES Engaging positively with the 0% 0.19/0.24 0.66 0% 0.10/0.27 0.45 YES environment (0.1-0.8/1) 3% 0.18/0.49 0.14 3% 0.05/0.34 0.71 NO Activity (0.1-1/1) Night-time observations Feeding observations (0-0.9/1) 0% <0.01/0.21 0.60 7% 0.04/0.61 0.33 YES Standing rest others (0-0.7/1) 0% 0.02/0.25 0.35 7% 0.07/0.46 0.41 YES Standing rest alone (0-0.5/1) 0% 0.02/0.12 0.52 25% 0.07/0.46 -0.37 NO Lying rest near others (0-0.7/1) 0% 0.02/0.31 0.30 0% 0.02/0.31 0.70 YES Lying rest alone (0-0.5/1) 0% 0.04/0.20 0.67 0% <0.01/0.12 0.94 YES Walking (0-0.3/1) 7% 0.01/0.12 0.29 15% 0.15/0.13 0.19 NO Stereotypy (0-0.3/1) 0% <0.01/0.08 0.49 0% 0.02/0.05 0.99 YES Social behaviour (0-0.3/1) 0% <0.02/0.18 0.18 7% 0.04/0.16 0.16 NO Interaction Environment () 3% 0.02/0.11 0.48 3% 0.04/0.16 0.41 YES Longest period lying rest (0-330) 0% 18.46/123.66 0.51 YES

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 112

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Table F.5: Concurrent validity statistics for the daytime behavioural observations part of the behavioural welfare tool Validity Element of tool Validated against ethogram analysis Statistics from GLMs Other associated variables accepted 1.1. Stereotypy Proportion Stereotypy t=2.75, P=0.012 YES 2.1. Dust-bathing Proportion Dust-bathing t=0.243, P=0.810 Variance in dust-bathing NO Proportion Dust-bathing (controlling t=1.93, P=0.066 (t=15.87, p<0.001). for variance observed) 2.2. Sand rolling Proportion Maintenance behaviour t=2.01, P=0.057 NO 2.3. Wallowing Proportion Wallowing t=5.14, P<0.001 YES 2.4. Water interactions Proportion interaction with water t=-0.46, P=0.648 NO 3.1. Feeding Proportion feeding t=2.72, P=0.012 YES 3.2. Feed outside schedule Proportion feeding t=2.29, P=0.032 YES 4.1 Walking Proportion locomotion t=0.40, P=0.691 Zoo (Safari parks rated NO Proportion walking t=0.94, P=0.356 walking on a lower scale to Proportion walking controlling for zoo t=2.31, P=0.030 zoos) (as a random effect) 5.2. Standing still Proportion standing t=0.04, P=0.967 NO Proportion standing rest t=-1.64, P=0.115 6.1. Interact(ion?) environment Proportion Interaction environment t=2.04, P=0.045 YES

6.2. Avoid others Proportion of time within proximity of 3 t=3.60, P=0.033 YES elephant lengths or less to others 6.3. Affiliative Proportion of time engaged in t=2.42, P=0.024 YES presumed affiliative behaviour 6.4. Agonistic Proportion of time engaged in t=2.39, P=0.026 YES presumed agonistic behaviour 6.5. Object play Proportion of time engaged in object t=1.37, P=0.185 Variance in object play NO play t=1.18, P=0.250 (t=12.56, P<0.001) Proportion of time engaged in object play (controlling for effect of variance in object play) 6.6. Play others Proportion of time engaged in play t=2.98, P=0.007 YES with others

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 113

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Table F.6: Concurrent validity statistics for the night-time behavioural observations part of the behavioural welfare tool Statistics from GLM Statistics from GLM on Validity Night time observation Validated against ethogram analysis across three days matched day accepted Feeding observations Proportion of feeding across three days t =1.10 P=0.29 YES* Proportion of feeding on same day t = 2.29 P=0.06 Standing rest others Proportion of standing rest others three days t =2.44 P=0.04 YES Standing total Proportion of standing rest three days t =3.36 P<0.01 YES Lying rest near others Proportion of lying rest others three days t =0.93 P= 0.36 YES* Proportion of lying rest others same day t =2.48 P=0.03 Lying rest total Proportion of lying rest three days t =0.99 P=0.33 YES* Proportion of lying rest same day t = 2.43 P=0.04 Walking Proportion of walking three days t = -0.98 P= 0.34 NO Proportion of walking same day t = -0.98 P=0.34 Stereotypy Proportion of stereotypy three days t =1.56 P=0.14 YES* Proportion of stereotypy same day t =2.82 P= 0.02 Agonistic behaviour Proportion of agonistic behaviour three days t =5.98 P<0.01 YES Longest period lying rest Mean longest bout of lying rest three days t = 0.398 P=0.70 YES* Longest bout of lying rest same day t =2.43 P= 0.05 Environment interaction Proportion of environmental interactions over t= 2.68, P=0.02 YES three days * Correlated with same night of observation, but not across all three nights

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 114

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Of those elements of the tool which reached the criteria set for reliability and validity, ten could be combined in a model to predict the keepers’ overall assessment of welfare, as made on a VAS, which explained much of the variance in this scale (R2=0.73). These were QBA: ‘Wary’, ‘Playful’, and component 1, daytime factors: 1 & 2, Q6.2 & Q6.4, and the proportion of night-time observations: ‘feeding’, ‘lying near others’, ‘total lying rest’, ‘environmental interactions’ and the ‘length of the longest lying bout’. The model was simplified due to the small sample size, and seven predictors remained in the model which had an R2 of 0.63. These were:  QBA ‘Wary’ (reduced welfare rating by -0.69±0.28, t=-2.50 P= 0.03);  QBA component 1 (-0.96±0.65, t=-1.48, P=0.16);  Daytime component 1 (0.29±0.15, t=1.99, P= 0.05);  Daytime component 2 ( -0.88±0.27, t=-3.27, P<0.01);  Daytime Q6.2 time spend avoiding other elephants (-0.37±0.13 t=-2.83 P=0.02);  Night time observations of lying with others (-0.68±0.32 t=-2.10, P=0.06);  Night time length of longest lying bout (1.23±0.64, t=1.91, P=0.08).

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 115

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

Table F.7. Construct validity predictions and relevant statistics Predicted direction of Correlation Prediction Items predicted to be related correlation coefficient supported? (+/-) QBA Internal QBA ‘Content’ and QBA ‘Relaxed’ + 0.76  QBA ‘Playful’ and QBA ‘Attentive’ + 0.34  QBA ‘Tense’ and QBA ‘Agitated’ + 0.81  QBA ‘Wary’ and QBA ‘Fearful’ + 0.75  QBA ‘Distressed’ and QBA ‘Agitated’ + 0.77  QBA ‘Uncomfortable’ and QBA ‘Tense’ + 0.61  QBA ‘Depressed’ and QBA ‘Attentive’ - 0.14 QBA ‘Content’ and QBA ‘Wary’ - -0.43  QBA ‘Content’ and QBA ‘Agitated’ - -0.58  QBA ‘Content’ and QBA ‘Tense’ - -0.51  QBA ‘Content’ and QBA ‘Distressed’ - -0.49  QBA ‘Relaxed’ and QBA ‘Wary’ - -0.69  QBA ‘Relaxed’ and QBA ‘Agitated’ - -0.77  QBA ‘Relaxed’ and QBA ‘Tense’ - -0.72  QBA ‘Relaxed’ and QBA ‘Distressed’ - -0.69  Questions Internal Q Stereotypy and Q Object play - -0.32  Q Stereotypy and Q Scheduled events + 0.48  Q Stereotypy interfere and Q Feeding - -0.56  Q Standing and Q Walking - -0.51  Q Standing and Q Interaction environment - -0.05 Q Avoid and Q Agonistic + 0.34  Q Affiliative and Q Agonistic - -0.34  Q Affiliative and Q Play others + 0.27 Q Affiliative and Q Interact environment + 0.41  Night-time internal N Social and N lying alone - -0.31  N Stereotypy and N Interaction environment - 0.07 N Standing rest and N lying rest - -0.51  N Social and N lying with others + 0.52  QBA and Daytime Questions QBA ‘Playful’ and Q6.6 Play others + 0.47  QBA ‘Playful’ and Q 6.5 Play objects + -0.06 QBA ‘Attentive’ and Q 6.5. Play objects + 0.38  QBA ‘Attentive’ and Q 6.1.Interaction + 0.28  environment QBA ‘Depressed’ and Q 5.2. Standing + 0.03 QBA ‘Relaxed’ and Q 2.1 Dust-bathing + -0.56 QBA ‘Relaxed’ and Q 2.3 Wallowing + -0.30 QBA ‘Content’ and Q 6.4 Agonistic - -0.51  QBA ‘Agitated’ and Q 6.4 Agonistic + 0.41  QBA ‘Frustrated’ and Q 6.4 Agonistic + 0.40  QBA ‘Wary’ and Q 6.4 Agonistic + 0.36  QBA ‘Attentive’ and Q 1.1. Stereotypy - -0.48  QBA and Night-time

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 116

Appendix F: Detailed methods and results on assessment of prototype tool

QBA ‘Relaxed’ and N Stereotypy - -0.12 QBA ‘Attentive’ and N Stereotypy - -0.44  QBA ‘Relaxed’ and N Lying rest + 0.32  QBA ‘Content’ and N Lying rest + 0.25 QBA ‘Fearful’ and N Lying rest - 0.06 QBA ‘Wary’ and N Lying rest - -0.19 QBA ‘Uncomfortable’ and N Standing rest + 0.16 QBA ‘Attentive’ and N Interaction environment + 0.14 QBA ‘Depressed’ and N Lying apart from others + 0.56  QBA ‘Depressed’ and N Standing apart from + 0.30  others Daytime Question and Night time observations Q Avoid and N Lying apart from others + 0.57  Q Affiliative and N Lying apart from others - -0.20 Q Agonistic and N Lying apart from others + 0.24 Q Affiliative and N Social + Couldn’t test Q Agonistic and N Social - Couldn’t test

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 117

Appendix G: Detailed methods and results for analysis of influence of individual elephant background on prototype tool G.1 Methods Data analysis In line with other welfare assessments (e.g. AssureWel [45]) and to facilitate analysis, all questions were collapsed to a three point benchmarking system. Generally, scores were collapsed according to the lowest 25% of scores Q1, the middle 50% of scores Q2 and the top 25% Q3, with higher scores supposed to indicate positive welfare. For scores where distributions did not facilitate this and which appeared to have a bimodal distribution, the top and bottom 50% were used. Each element of the tool from the day-time behaviour questions and night-time behaviour was rescored in this way. QBA scores were kept as raw scores and groupings were used a sum of the quartile positions (highest 25% =1, middle 50%=2, lowest 25%=3).

Each element or grouping of elements (components) of the tool found to be reliable and valid from the analysis described in section 2.4 (see Table 8) was included as an outcome variable in this analysis. Each of the following ‘background’ variables collected were used as predictors. Body Condition Score (henceforth BCS), Foot score, Gait score, Species, Sex, Chronic or Acute health conditions experienced in the previous 12 months, any health condition (whether chronic or acute), whether the cow elephant had a calf in group, whether calves or young juveniles were present in group, the proportion of individuals in the group to which they were related and whether they were related to any other group members, the length of time they had resided at the zoo, the number of inter-zoo transfers, the elephant’s origin (i.e. captive-born or wild-caught) and whether the elephant had a history of a working background (circus or timber camp). QBA, scores and groupings were analysed using a linear model. Multinomial ordinal or binary logistic regressions were otherwise performed as appropriate. Univariate analysis followed by forward stepwise selection was used to understand which background variables were associated with which elements of the tool. G.2 Results Qualitative Behavioural Assessment At ease in the environment (a grouping of adjectives which included low content/relaxed and high uncomfortable/agitated/tense/frustrated), was scored higher for Asian elephants (scored 0.44 more ±0.15, t=2.99, P=0.006) and for elephants which had a calf or young juvenile in the group (scored 0.23 more ±0.12, t=1.97, P=0.06). Elephants were rated as more playful in the QBA if they were younger (the QBA score decreased by 0.15 for each year older the elephant ± 0.02, t=-7.99, P<0.001). However, if the elephant had been at the zoo for longer, this was increased a small amount for each year the elephant had been at the zoo (by 0.01 ±0.001, t=7.45, P<0.001). Elephants were rated as more wary if they had an acute health problem in the previous 12 months (by 0.77±0.38, t=2.03, P=0.05), and if there were calves in the group (by 1.10±0.35, t= 3.19, P= 0.003).

Daytime behaviour questions

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 118

Appendix G: Detailed methods and results on analysis of influence of individual elephant background on prototype tool

Dependence on scheduled events (which included Feeding frequency, Feeding at scheduled times, Waiting for scheduled events and not Playing with others) was associated with age, foot health and gait scores. Specifically, for each year older an elephant was, they were more likely to score in Q2s or Q1s across this score (they scored a mean of 0.04 higher on this score for each year ±0.01, t=1.96, P=0.06). Elephants were more likely to score in Q2s or Q1s across this score with each unit higher that they scored on foot health scores (they scored a mean of 0.45 higher ±0.09, t=4.84, P<0.001) and gait scores (0.016±0.05, t=3.27, P=0.003); higher foot and gait scores indicate poorer foot health and poorer gait.

Component 2 from the daytime observations (which included Wallowing frequency, Interactions with environment and Affiliative behaviour) was different for Asian compared to African elephants, with Asians scoring higher on component 2. They were less likely to be in Q2s and Q1s than Africans (scored a mean of 1.27 less ± 0.39, t=-3.23, P= 0.003).

Stereotypy was associated with gait score, species, whether elephants were related to other members of the herd and whether they were wild caught or captive bred. Elephants were more likely to be rated in Q2 or Q1 if:  they had higher gait scores – i.e. poorer gaits (more likely to score in Q1 by OR= 1.66, CI=1.01-2.74, P=0.047)  they were not housed with related herd members (more likely to score in Q2 by OR=22.97 CI=1.53-34.37, P=0.02)  elephants were Asian rather than African (more likely to score in Q2, OR=7.92, CI=1.05-9.76, P=0.043)  elephants were wild caught ( more likely to score in Q2 OR=5.99, CI=0.83- 43.19, P=0.07); all elephants with a score in Q1 were wild caught.

Night-time observations Elephants with higher BCSs and higher gait scores (poorer gaits) were seen lying for a longer proportion of time each night. With each unit increase in the gait score night-time lying, was less likely to be scored in Q2 (OR: 1.87, CI=0.98-3.58, P=0.05) or in Q1 (OR: 1.31, CI=0.94-2.69, P=0.08). With each unit increase in the BCS night- time lying, was less likely to be scored in Q2 (OR: 1.94, CI=0.82-4.59, P=0.13) or in Q1 (OR: 2.56, CI=0.90-7.26, P=0.08), but this was not statistically significant.

The length of the longest lying bout shorter if:  they did not have any health problems (trend for more likely to score in Q2, 1.31, CI=0.81-13.03, P=0.09 and more likely to score in Q1, 5.67, CI=1.73- 18.6, P=<0.001)  they were younger (more likely to score in Q1, 6.75, CI=3.05-14.98, P=<0.001)  they had a lower BCS (more likely to score in Q1, OR=1.61, CI=1.02-2.56-, P=0.05)  had a higher (i.e. worse condition) foot score (more likely to score in Q2 OR=1.35, CI=1.82-3.30, P=0.01 and in Q1, OR=4.75, CI=2.31-9.76, P<0.001).

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 119

Appendix H: Handbook for use of Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool This Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool has been designed for use by keepers to assess the welfare of individual elephants, and to monitor changes in the welfare of each elephant over time. The output from this tool will also feed into BIAZA's Elephant Welfare Group (EWG) assessment of elephant welfare at each facility across the UK.

This Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool has been subjected to a rigorous process of validation to check for consistency and reliability (for details, see report for Defra Project WC1081)

This Assessment Tool should be used quarterly to assess the welfare of each elephant, and each zoo should report their elephants’ welfare assessment scores to BIAZA's EWG every 3 months, using the spreadsheet provided (send to Lisa Yon: [email protected]).

It is envisaged that zoos will monitor positive and negative changes in these welfare assessment scores, and can take appropriate action as needed.

The welfare assessment tool has three sections

1. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment 2. Daytime activity 3. Night-time activity

All three sections should be completed within the same one-week period. A suggested timetable for completion of the Tool is provided at the end of this handbook.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 120

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION A: QUALITATIVE BEHAVIOURAL ASSESSMENT (QBA) (Time Period Covered: One Day)

You will make four observations of each elephant. Each observation should last one minute and should be distributed throughout the day as outlined below. At the end of each 1 minute observation, you will complete Section A of the Welfare Assessment Tool .

One observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:

1. 09:00 – 11:00 2. 11:00 – 13:00 3. 13:00 – 15:00 4. 15:00 – 17:00

Please note: Observations must NOT be made within 30 minutes (either before or after) of an event which is known or suspected to substantially affect behaviour, e.g. feeding or being let inside/outside.

Section A asks you to assess the elephant’s emotional state. You will be given a series of adjectives (content, relaxed, uncomfortable, agitated, tense, frustrated, playful, wary). For each term, you will be asked to rate that elephant on a scale to indicate how much you thinks that term does or does not apply to that elephant’s emotional state for the day.

Definitions of the behaviours to be assessed are provided for each term on the scoring sheet.

For each term, you must draw a single vertical mark on the line between the two terms to indicate where along that scale you think the elephant falls.

At the end of the day, you will have four copies of Section A completed. Measure the length of the line in cm where you have put each mark for each question. Enter this data into the Welfare Assessment Tool Spreadsheet. When you enter the information in the spreadsheet it will automatically calculate scores of how ‘Playful’, ‘Wary’ and ‘At ease with the environment’ you have rated the elephant on this assessment.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 121

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION B: DAYTIME ACTIVITY (Time Period Covered: Three Days)

Four times each day for three consecutive days you should observe each elephant for 5 minutes. The four observations must be distributed throughout the day. One observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:

1. 09:00 – 11:00 2. 11:00 – 13:00 3. 13:00 – 15:00 4. 15:00 – 17:00

 Note: A keeper cannot observe more than two elephants at a time in each 5 minute block. For each additional elephant, separate additional 5-minute observations must be performed (one additional time block for each 1-2 elephants).  During the observation period, you must follow around the elephant(s) being assessed to ensure a clear view is maintained wherever possible, so that all their behaviours can be observed in that time period.

During each observation you will use the crib sheet to make notes on the behaviour of the elephant. On the crib sheet, for each time period of observation, put an ‘x’ or check mark in the boxes for any of the behaviours seen during the 5 minute observation period (note: it is likely you will observe more than one of those behaviours during that 5 minute period, so will have ‘x’ for more than one behaviour).

On the afternoon of the third day, you will complete Section 2 of the welfare assessment tool, using notes you have made on the crib sheets over the previous three days. Section 2 is a series of questions about the activity of the each elephant observed over the three day period. Once you have completed Section 2, measure the length of any marks made on lines and transfer this and other information to the Welfare Assessment Spreadsheet.

Specific questions will be asked about the occurrence of the following activities:  Stereotypies  Wallowing  Feeding & Foraging  Interaction with the environment  Affiliative behaviour  Agonistic behaviour  Play with conspecifics

Definitions of these behaviours are given on pages 5-7 of the handbook.

In addition, there are questions about:

 Time spent with other elephants  How often elephant is seen waiting for scheduled events

The keeper will also be asked for observations and information from past experience with the elephant, specifically:

 How the elephant has reacted to new or unexpected situations  The vocalisations the elephant has made, and the context in which they were made

Finally, the keeper is asked to give an opinion on overall welfare for that elephant.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 122

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION C: NIGHT-TIME ACTIVITY (Time Period Covered: One night video footage, reviewed next day)

 Choose one night during the week of behavioural welfare assessment to look at overnight behaviour of the elephants. Review over-night video footage of elephants in the indoor enclosures.  For each elephant, record behaviours observed every 30 minutes throughout the night- time period (beginning at 19:00, and continuing until 09:00 or whatever time keepers arrive in the morning)

 Use the data sheet provided. Every 30 minutes, for each elephant, record (use an 'x' or a checkmark) which behaviour they are engaged in:

o Stereotypies o Lying down: indicate if lying with others or alone. (If lying down with others, write the name(s) of the other elephant(s)) o Feeding/Foraging o Interacting with environment o Comfort (self-maintenance) o Social behaviour o Other behaviour (not one of those listed above) o Out of sight of cameras (if they are not visible on any of the cameras)

Note: At each time point, for each elephant, choose only ONE of these behaviours to mark.

 In addition, quickly scan all the video footage for that night to check for any instances of agonistic/aggressive behaviour. If any aggression is seen, write down what behaviour was seen, which elephants were involved, who initiated the aggressive behaviour, and who was the recipient.  You may wish to divide up the task between keepers, and may each choose to follow a specific elephant on all cameras within the elephant house or watch all of the elephants on one camera within the elephant house. Between the team, all elephants must be observed on all cameras throughout the night.

Definitions of all of these behaviours are given on pages 5-7 of the handbook.

When you have completed your night time observations, count how many times you have observed each behaviour across the whole night, and transfer this information onto the Welfare Assessment Spreadsheet. Also enter the total number of observations where the elephant was out of view and the number agonistic/aggressive encounters you have seen, into the spreadsheet.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 123

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Definition of terms for behaviour assessment The behavioural terms used in Sections B & C of the Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool are defined below. The category of each behaviour is given, along with the term used to describe that behaviour, and the definition of each term.

Category Behaviour Description Sleep/Rest Lying rest Lateral recumbency, no other behaviours are being performed Anticipatory Anticipating Standing alert, often near (within two elephant body lengths) of gates or enclosure bars prior to an event (e.g. feeding, moving inside, etc.) Stereotyping Repetitive behaviour with no obvious purpose. May include but is not limited to the following: Head bobbing Repetitive vertical movement of head Swaying/ Side to side or back and forth repetitive swaying of the body Weaving Trunk tossing Vigorous swaying of trunk from side to side Head pressing Pressing head up against an object with no oblivious purpose Pacing Walking repeatedly along the same route in an unvarying, repetitive pattern

Leg swing Standing still repeatedly swinging one front leg back and forth Foot lifting Standing still repeatedly lifting one foot in the air Rocking Rocking back and forth transferring weight from hind to front legs Tusk banging Repetitive banging or rubbing of the tusks on objects (e.g. enclosure bars or logs) Bar biting Chewing or gnawing on enclosure bars Comfort Any self-maintenance or grooming behaviour. May include but is not limited to: Wallowing Lying down and rolling in mud Rubbing Rubbing the body against an object Rolling Lying down and rolling in dirt or sand Scratching Scratching the body with trunk or foot - this can include using the trunk to scratch/feel gently around the skin, eye or ear Scratching with tool Scratching the body with a tool, e.g. branch or stick Throwing straw on self Throwing soft objects such as grass or straw onto the body using the trunk Dust bath Spraying mud, dust or sand on the body Water bath Spraying water on the body Body slap Hitting of own body with tail or trunk, appears to be a means of removing an insect or other irritant

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 124

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Social/affiliative Any positive or neutral interaction with another elephant. May include but is not limited to: Leaning Leaning on another elephant Standing Standing underneath or standing above another elephant Trunk-mouth Putting the trunk in the mouth of another elephant Touching Touching another elephant with the trunk in a non-aggressive manner Tail Holding the tail of another elephant with the trunk or underneath a leg

Trunk-trunk Intertwining of trunks between two elephants Approach Moving in a non-aggressive manner, within one body length of another elephant

Climb Placing at least one foot on top of another elephant - usually one that is lying down Offer food One elephant pushes a pile of food towards another elephant, looks like an offering of the resource Trunk lifting Trunk is outstretched and raised towards an approaching individual Sitting on an elephant Sitting in a crouched position on top of another elephant which is in lying rest Rubbing elephant Rubbing the body against another elephant Playing with an elephant Engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, trunk wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship Interaction with environment Investigating or interacting with things in the environment (other than food). May include but is not limited to: Play with an object Throwing or kicking debris or an object around in a playful interaction Object manipulation Examination or manipulation of an object with the trunk and/or foot Environmental investigation Investigating things in the environment (other than food) with the trunk - looks like the individual may be 'sniffing' at the ground or objects Eating/Foraging Eating Manipulation (including breaking up of food stuffs using the trunk or foot) and consumption of food Foraging The process of searching for and collecting food stuffs using the trunk and/or foot - may include kicking up grasses, shaking the food in the trunk or beating against the leg Agonistic behaviour Any negative social behaviour Tusking Poking or jabbing at another elephant with the tusk Charge Move towards another elephant with the head held high, pace usually quickens as

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 125

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

individual gets closer to the target elephant, can lead to pursuit of another elephant Bite Biting of the body, trunk or tail of another elephant Kick Strike out or hit an elephant or object with a foot in a seemingly aggressive manner - note object may include enclosure bars or kicking of sand towards another elephant Strike Hitting another elephant with the trunk or tail Push One elephant forces or pushes against the body (usually the rump) of another elephant, resulting in the elephant that is being pushed moving at least two steps Stand off Two elephants standing facing in opposite directions with foreheads pushing against each other Smack Hitting the trunk on the floor in an aggressive manner, may be accompanied by a 'snort' Food stealing Taking food from another elephant

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 126

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELEPHANT BEHAVIOURAL WELFARE ASSESSMENT TOOL SPREADSHEET

You will complete one spreadsheet for each elephant, each time that you complete the Elephant Welfare Assessment Tool for that elephant.

Note: DO NOT use the tabs labelled ‘do not open or alter’. These tabs contain the formulas for the spreadsheet. If you change the contents of these tabs, the spreadsheet won’t function properly.

Section A

 Use your paperwork from Section A from the Welfare Assessment Tool. Each QBA adjective was scored along a line; the total length of that line is 10 cm. Use a ruler; for each QBA term that you scored, measure the distance in centimetres from the left hand end of the line to the mark you drew on that line (measure to the nearest 0.1 cm), and write down the length next to the place where you did the scoring for that term. Do the same for all four sets of observations and QBA scorings that you did.

Open the Elephant Welfare Assessment Tool Spreadsheet.  Click on the first tab, labelled 'Enter Section A Scores here', to enter all the scores for the four one-minute QBA assessments done for that elephant. The left hand column lists the different QBA terms on which you rated the elephant. In the column for Observation One, enter the length you measured for the marks for each of the adjectives you scored on your first observation. Do the same for the scores from Observations 2, 3 and 4.

Section B

 Using the paperwork you completed for Section B, you will transfer your answers to the spreadsheet. For Questions 3.2, 4.1, 5.2, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, you rated the elephant by placing a mark along the line, which measures 10 centimetres in length. Use a ruler and measure the length from the left hand end of the line to the location of the mark you made on that line (measure to the nearest 0.1 cm), and record that length next to that question.

 Open the spreadsheet, and click on the second tab, labelled 'Enter Section B Scores Here'.

Section 1

o Q1.1. Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question.

o Q 1.2. There are two columns provided for any stereotypies identified. If any stereotypies were listed for this question, for each stereotypy, write the type of stereotypy in the column on the left, and in the corresponding cell in the column on the right, click to select from the

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 127

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

dropdown box the frequency with which the elephant shows that stereotypy.

o Q1.3. Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question.

o Q1.4. Click on the cell, choose from the dropdown box the answer (yes/no/unknown). In the cell underneath, list what the stereotypy can be interrupted by (if known).

Section 2

o Q2.1 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question.

Section 3

o Q 3.1 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question. o Q 3.2 Enter the distance you measured (in cm.) from the left hand end of the line to the place where you put a mark on that line

Section 4

o Q4.1 Enter the distance you measured (in cm.) from the left hand end of the line to the place where you put a mark on that line.

Section 5

o Q5.1 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question. In the cell underneath, write what you have seen the elephant interacting with.

o Q 5.2 Enter the distance you measured (in cm.) from the left hand end of the line to the place where you put a mark on that line.

o Q5.3 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question. In the cell underneath, write details of the affiliative interactions you have seen.

o Q5.4 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question. In the cell underneath, write details of the agonistic interactions you have seen.

o Q5.5 Click on the cell, and you will see a drop down list with all the possible answers listed. Select the answer you chose for that question.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 128

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

In the cell underneath, write details of the play behaviour you have seen.

Section 6

o Q6.1 Type in any other observations you made of the elephant in the past 3 days that you think are important.

Section 7

o Q7.1 Type in any details about the last time you saw the elephant responding to a new or unexpected situation. Describe the situation and the elephant’s response to it.

o Q7.2. There are two columns for this question. In the left-hand column list any vocalisations you have heard the elephant make. In the right hand column, indicate the context for each of these vocalisations.

Section 8

o For Q8.1, 8.2 and 8.3: Enter the distance you measured (in cm.) from the left hand end of the line to the place where you put a mark on that line.

Section C

 For each of the behaviours for which you recorded the overnight frequency every 30 minutes, you will enter the total number of times you observed that behaviour for the overnight period of observation. Do this for ‘Feeding’, ‘Lying down alone’, ‘Lying down with others’, ‘Stereotypy’, ‘Comfort’, ‘Interaction with Environment’, ‘Social/Affiliative behaviours’, ‘Other’, and ‘Out of view’.

 In addition, for ‘Lying down with others’, in the adjacent column, record with whom they were lying down (for each elephant listed, indicate how many times the elephant being observed lay down with that other particular elephant. For example: elephant was lying only with Elephant A (2 times); with Elephants A&B (3 times); with elephant B only (1 time))

 For 'Other' behaviour, in the adjacent column under the Details heading, write what that behaviour was (if more than one ‘Other’ behaviour was recorded, write what each of them was, and number of times each behaviour was observed)

 For the question: "What was the maximum number of consecutive observations this elephant was seen in lying rest?", enter the largest number of consecutive observations you saw the elephant in lying rest. For example if the elephant was feeding at 9:00, in lying rest at 9:30, 10:00, 10:30, 11:00, 11:30, 12:00, 12:30 and 1:00 but then feeding again at 1:30 you would enter ‘8’ in this box.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 129

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

 For each incidents of aggression seen (if there were any), enter the details on the time, behaviour seen, the circumstances, who was the aggressor(s) and who was the recipient(s).

 Finally, enter any comments about the elephant or its behaviour that you think are important.

RESULTS Tab

Once you have entered all the data into the tabs for Sections A, B and C, you can view the overall results for that elephant by clicking on the ‘See Results Here’ tab.

Composite scores

 In this section are some composite scores which have been compiled from the individual information you have entered from each section. Each of the elements of welfare listed has a score ranging from zero (worst possible score on that composite welfare measure) to ten (highest possible score on that composite welfare measure).

 Note that these scores are not corrected for individual differences such as age, health, background etc. Based on the results from trials of this tool, some of these differences can affect an elephant's scores on some of these items. These are listed under the 'Notes' column for the relevant items.

 Over time, as zoos regularly send in their elephant's welfare score spreadsheets, the EWG will be able to gather more detailed and accurate information about differences in scores based on individual differences in elephant background, to aid in better interpretation of these welfare scores.

It is most important to assess each elephant's CHANGES in scores over time, rather than to look at an individual elephant's scores at any single point in time.

Reflection and Planning Based on Scores

 Based on the composite scores, you are asked to answer the following questions (record your answer in the space provided): o Are there any scores that are better than last time? o Are there any scores which are worse o Can you reflect on why this might be? Use the information you entered in the comments boxes to help o Which section is this elephant scoring worst on? what can you do to improve this score or scores?

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 130

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

 Based on this welfare assessment, it is suggested that you write an Action Plan for the elephant (to sustain good scores and/or to improve lower scoring areas)

Pie Chart of Night Time Behaviour At the bottom of this section, you can see a pie chart which shows the behaviours you observed from your night time observations; the graph indicates the relative amount of time the elephant spent performing each of the behaviours. You can use this to give you an overview of what the elephants are doing at night.

Sending Your Final Scores to the EWG

Rename the spreadsheet with your Zoo’s name, the elephant’s name and the date completed, and email the spreadsheets to the Elephant Welfare Group ([email protected])

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 131

Appendix H: Handbook for Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Suggested Data Collection Timetable

Section of Day Elephant Keeper(s) Activities Welfare Tool Morning: 2 x 1 minute observation periods (per elephant), followed by QBA assessment  One observation must be made between: 09:00 – 11:00  One observation must be made between: 11:00 – 13:00 Section A Complete Section A for each elephant after each observation Monday Afternoon: 2 x 1 minute observation periods (per elephant), followed by QBA assessment  One observation must be made between : 13:00 – 15:00  One observation must be made between : 15:00 – 17:00 Complete Section A for each elephant after each observation Morning: 2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 09:00 – 11:00  One observation must be made between: 11:00 – 13:00 Fill in crib sheet for Section B for each elephant Tuesday Afternoon: 2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 13:00 – 15:00  One observation must be made between: 15:00 – 17:00 Continue to fill in crib sheet for each elephant Morning: 2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 09:00 – 11:00  One observation must be made between: 11:00 – 13:00 Continue to fill in crib sheet for each elephant Wednesday Section B Afternoon:

2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 13:00 – 15:00  One observation must be made between: 15:00 – 17:00 Continue to fill in crib sheet for each elephant Morning: 2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 09:00 – 11:00  One observation must be made between: 11:00 – 13:00 Continue to fill in crib sheet for each elephant Thursday Afternoon: 2 x 5 minute observations* to document daily activity. At least one observation must be made in each of the following time blocks:  One observation must be made between: 13:00 – 15:00  One observation must be made between: 15:00 – 17:00 Fill in crib sheet for each elephant. Then use crib sheet to complete Section B for each elephant. Morning: Section C Friday  40 minutes to view overnight video footage Then complete Section C for each elephant

*Note: 5 minute observations per 2 elephants observed maximum Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 132

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION A

Live Observations – Qualitative Behavioural Assessment

Elephant: ______Date: ______

Assessor: ______

Number of years working with elephants ______

Please complete this short Qualitative Behaviour Assessment based on 1 minute of live observation of this individual. For each term, draw a single vertical mark on the line between the two terms to indicate where along that scale you think the elephant falls.

Content: appears at ease, tranquil, seems satisfied

Not content Content

Relaxed: Peaceful, seems free from tension.

Not relaxed Relaxed

Uncomfortable: ill at ease without a clear context for any distress. Body, trunk, head postures un-relaxed and possibly changing frequently, appear fidgety.

Comfortable Uncomfortable

Agitated: a state of uncertainty which can be accompanied by physical restlessness and over-reaction to stimuli e.g. trumpeting. Scanning environment in a tense and anxious fashion.

Not agitated Agitated

Tense: body, head, trunk, held in a rigid fashion, un-relaxed reactions to stimuli.

Not tense Tense

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 133

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Frustrated: reacting to seeking a goal without success; can be violent (kicking, tusking, whacking with trunk, head pushing with body, head-on charge) towards others or objects or take the form of tossing objects about as a displacement activity. Angry body posture.

Not Frustrated frustrated

Wary: sometimes nervous, paused reaction to some stimuli, unwilling to move in or out of an area, may be accompanied by listening and smelling. It is a slow and calm behaviour.

Not wary Wary

Playful: engaged in a bout of object, locomotory or social play. Responds positively to solicitations for play.

Not playful Playful

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 134

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION B Live Observations – Daytime activity

Elephant: ______Date form completed: ______

Assessor: ______

Number of years working with elephants ______

Please answer the following questions based on the live observations you have made over the last 3 days.

A. For the multiple choice questions, please choose the ONE best answer.

B. For the questions that have a line drawn between two descriptions at each end of the line (showing the range of possible answers), draw a single vertical line on the point along that line that you think best indicates where the elephant’s behaviour lies between those two points.

For example:

I hate driving ______I love driving

Section 1: Stereotypies 1.1. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has performed a stereotypy... a. Always (few, if any, stereotypy-free intervals) b. Very frequently (virtually every hour) c. Frequently (daily, multiple times per day) d. Occasionally (daily but infrequent) e. Rarely (not daily) f. Never

1.2. If you have seen this elephant stereotype please give a breakdown of the stereotypies seen, their approximate frequency and the approximate time of day they occurred

Description Frequency Time of Location (using above day scale)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 135

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

1.3. Do the stereotypies this elephant performs ever interfere with their behaviour? a. Stereotypies do not interrupt flow of behaviour b. Stereotypies occasionally interrupt flow of behaviour c. Stereotypies frequently interrupt flow of behaviour d. Frequently interrupt flow of behaviour and occasionally disrupt intended action e. Stereotypies frequently disrupt intended action

1.4. Can the stereotypies this elephant performs be interrupted? Yes/No/Unknown

If yes, please describe what they are interrupted by:

Section 2: Comfort Behaviour - Wallowing

2.5. During the last 3 days of observations this elephant has wallowed… a. More than once a day during my observations b. Around once a day during my observations c. Never during my observations

Section 3: Feeding

3.3. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant feeding... a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 136

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

3.4. During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Rarely Forage for forage food all and/or only the time it feed at is free to scheduled do so feed times

Section 4: Activity

4.1 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Spend most Engaging in of its day activities waiting for completely scheduled independent events of the scheduled events

Section 5: Social and Environmental Interactions

5.1 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant interacting with the environment (investigating or interacting with things in the environment other than food with the trunk...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with what they were interacting

5.2 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant...

Avoid other Spend time elephants near or

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 137

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

every time it approach other is free to do elephants so every time it is free to do so

5.3 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant engaging in affiliative behaviour (any positive social interaction, e.g. touching another elephant in a non-aggressive manner) ...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how:

5.4 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant engaging in agonistic behaviour (any negative social interaction, behaving in a manner which causes harm or potential harm to conspecifics, e.g. displaces, displays, chases, bites) ...

a. Almost every time I looked at them b. Most but not every time I have looked at them c. Half or more of the times I have looked at them d. Less than half the times I have looked at them e. Around once a day during my observations f. Less than daily during my observations g. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how:

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 138

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

5.5 During the last 3 days of observations I have seen this elephant playing with conspecifics (engaging in active play with another elephant, including head to head sparring, trunk wrestling, mounting, chasing, and rolling on one another. Does not include behaviours observed following an antagonistic encounter or as part of courtship) ...

a. More than once a day during my observations b. Around once a day during my observations c. Never during my observations

In a few words please describe with whom they were interacting and how:

Section 6

Please provide details of any other observations you have made of this animal in the last 3 days which you believe are of importance

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 139

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Section 7

Please answer the following questions based on your general experience from working with this elephant:

7.1 When was the last time you saw this elephant come across a new or unexpected situation? What was the situation and what was their reaction?

8.3. Please describe in the table below any vocalisations this individual has made and the contexts in which they occurred

7.2 Please describe in the table below any vocalisations this individual has made and the contexts in which they occurred Vocalisation – Rumble, Trumpet or Context Other (please provide short description)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 140

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

Section 8 Overall, at the current point in time... Please place a single vertical mark along the line to indicate what you feel is the appropriate location for each aspect of health and welfare for this individual.

8.1 Mental health

Worst imaginable Best imaginable for any elephant anywhere

8.2 Physical health

Best imaginable for Worst imaginable any elephant anywhere 8.3 Overall Welfare

Best imaginable for Worst imaginable any elephant anywhere

Comments: Please provide any other comments relating to this this elephant, or your assessment of it.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 141

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION B CRIB SHEET: ELEPHANT BEHAVIOUR NOTES Elephant Name:

Dates of Observation: Behaviours observed Day Time Block Stereotyping Wallowing Feeding Foraging Environmental Affiliative Agonistic Affiliative: Anticipating Interaction Conspecific play One 9:00 – 11:00 11:00 – 13:00 13:00 – 15:00 15:00 – 17:00 Two 9:00 – 11:00 11:00 – 13:00 13:00 – 15:00 15:00 – 17:00 Three 9:00 – 11:00 11:00 – 13:00 13:00 – 15:00 15:00 – 17:00 Comments:

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 142

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

SECTION C: DATASHEET FOR OVERNIGHT BEHAVIOUR

Name of elephant: Date: Assessor: Behaviours Observed

Time Lying Down: Social/ Feeding Stereotypy Interaction with Environment Other (describe) Out of view ALONE or WITH OTHERS Comfort Affiliative (if with others, names of others)

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

00:00

00:30

01:00

01:30

02:00

02:30

03:00

03:30

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 143

Appendix I: Final version of Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool

04:00

04:30

05:00

05:30

06:00

06:30

07:00

07:30

08:00

08:30

09:00

Incidents of aggression (agonistic behaviour) Time Behaviour seen Circumstances Aggressor(s) Recipient(s)

Comments:

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 144

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.1: Enclosures – appraised literature

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size Adams et al 1980 USA Furniture which low level objects like tree LA 7 (0.7) Observational -no Y -sampling periods observational - no face non-parametric enables stumps to rub against intervention throughout year;23 May manipulation (correlations,)varimax scratching/rubbing 1975-22 May 1976 rotated factor matrix

Adams et al 1980 USA Complex variety in environment LA 7 (0.7) Observational -no Y -sampling periods observational - no face non-parametric environments intervention throughout year;23 May manipulation (correlations,)varimax 1975-22 May 1976 rotated factor matrix Adams et al 1980 USA Earth/soil mud/soil for dusting or LA 7 (0.7) Observational -no Y -sampling periods observational - no face non-parametric mudding intervention throughout year;23 May manipulation (correlations,)varimax 1975-22 May 1976 rotated factor matrix Adams et al 1980 USA Mud mud/soil for dusting or LA 7 (0.7) Observational -no Y -sampling periods observational - no face non-parametric mudding intervention throughout year;23 May manipulation (correlations,)varimax 1975-22 May 1976 rotated factor matrix Elzanowski & Sergiel Free access year round EM 1 (0.1) Observational - Y - 5 sampling periods Observational - no Face Non-parametric tests - 2006 Poland indoors/outdoors indooor/outdoor access quantitative throughout the year, 7 manipulation The Friedman test, 24/7 year round days sampling within in post hoc analysis each period multiple comparisons, Spearman’s rank

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 145

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size Friend 1999 USA Activities not non-timed activities EM/LA 17 Observational - 4 elephants, observed Observational - no Face largely descriptive, human led (no or (0.17);14 quantitative in two successive years manipulation some non-parametric few scheduled EM, 3 LA (correlations) events)

Friend & Parker 1999 Never chained no chains/tethers EM 9(0.9) Observational - Y; 1996: picketted; Observational - no Face Parametric (ANOVA USA quantitative 1998: penned manipulation using GLM: stereotypic behaviours vs. housing methods; time weaving vs. housing ); non- parametric (Spearman rank cc time spent stereotyping vs. time out of pen; Spearman cc age elephant vs. time stereotyping) Gruber et al. 2000 USA Never chained no chains/tethers EM/LA EM Observational - Y, same animals Observational - Face Parametric (Factorial 10 (1.9), LA quantitative observed in two sets of addition removal analysis of variance, (0.3) conditions, chained 2 (chains vs. pens) log linear analysis) times, penned 4 times

Gurusamy et al. 2014 Places to hide from distance or barrier EM/LA 242 Survey NA Survey (expert Face None Worldwide public (i.e. visual between enclosure and people opinion) barriers, different public, completed areas) survey

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 146

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size Gurusamy et al. 2014 Sawdust ,sand/soil/sawdust on EM/LA 242 Survey NA Survey (expert Face None Worldwide floor inside and outside people opinion) completed survey Gurusamy et al. 2014 Earth/soil ,sand/soil/sawdust on EM/LA 242 Survey NA Survey (expert Face None Worldwide floor inside and outside people opinion) completed survey Gurusamy et al. 2014 Sand ,sand/soil/sawdust on EM/LA 242 Survey NA Survey (expert Face None Worldwide floor inside and outside people opinion) completed survey Haspeslagh et al. 2013 Earth/soil dirt, rubber mats (straw, EM 87 Survey NA - Objective Epidemiological Construct GLMM Europe grass); NOT concrete (not (16.71) questionnaire sand) Haspeslagh et al. 2013 Rubber flooring dirt, rubber mats (straw, EM 87 Survey NA - Objective Epidemiological Construct GLMM Europe grass); NOT concrete (not (16.71) questionnaire sand)

Leighty et al 2009 USA Outdoor space more when in larger LA 7 (0.7) 7 Observational – no Y - data collected over Observational - no Face Non parametric allowance double enclosures (2.32 hectare= (0.7) intervention the period of 1 year (50 manipulation (Pearson’s current minimum 23,200 m2 better than days of recordings per correlation, Wilcoxon requirements (i.e. 1.64 ha=16,400 m2) female) signed ranks test), 1000 sqm/elephant) descriptive

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 147

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size Leighty et al 2010 USA More than one Design enclosure to avoid LA 7 (0.7) Observational – no Y - data collected over Observational – no Face Non-parametric entrance/exit restricted flow areas to intervention the period of 1 year (50 manipulation (Pearson’s between avoid conflict for lower days of recordings per correlation, Wilcoxon houses/paddocks status individuals female) signed ranks test), descriptive

Meller et al 2007 USA Rubber flooring rubber better than EM 6 (2.4) Experimental Y - 135 hrs of Observational - Face Activity budgets, t concrete for promoting observation per before and after tests and ANOVA with natural behaviour and rest individual during study changed flooring post hoc Bonferroni period test

Mueller et al. 2013 USA Earth/soil provide opportunities for LA 3(0.3) observational - no yes - each observed Observational - no face Descriptive only dusting at all times and manipulation 1x/day,3days/week over manipulation weather, in both inside 1 1/2 years and outside enclosures; have substrates that allow digging, dusting and manipulation;

Mueller et al. 2013 USA Complex ;increase environmental LA 3(0.3) observational - no yes - each observed Observational - no face Descriptive only environments complexity and variability manipulation 1x/day,3days/week over manipulation to encourage 1 1/2 years investigatory behaviour; have substrates that allow digging, dusting and manipulation; add enrichment, environmental variation

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 148

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size indoors,to encourage natural behaviour

Posta et al. 2013 USA Free access LA 2 (1.1) Observational - no Y - 12hrs/week of data Observational - no Face Descriptive only indoors/outdoors manipulation over 2yr period manipulation 24/7 year round

Rees 2002 UK Earth/soil dusting important for EM 7 (2.5) Observational - no Y -29 days data from 10 Observational - no face Non-parametric group cohesion? For skin manipulation Feb-21 Sept.;112 hours manipulation (Pearson’s protection data correlation) , descriptive

Rees 2009 UK Activities led by ,introduce unpredictability EM 8 (2.6) Observational-no Y - 35 days of Observational - no Face Non-parametric humans at in mgmt regimes, espec manipulation observation of same manipulation (Pearson’s), randomised times feeding regimes. group descriptive

Scmid 1995 Germany Not chained for reduce shackling as much EM/LA EM observational - no Y-4-11 days of observational - no Face Non-parametric (data and Switzerland long periods (e.g. as possible, favour 19 (0.19), manipulation observation per circus manipulation stratified by circuses overnight) keeping in paddocks LA 10 (0.10) and analysed using a stratified Wilcoxon test)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 149

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

animal

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

No. of No. repeated

Authorand Year

Recommendation

measuresof same

Methodof assessing Species and Species sample size Taylor 1998; Europe, N. Places to hide from plenty of space and visual LA/EM NA Survey NA - questionnaire Epidemiological face America, Asia other individuals barriers to allow (survey) (i.e. visual barriers, subordinate animals to different areas) escape from dominants

Vanitha et al.; 2011 India Not chained for avoid prolonged chaining, EM 135 Survey plus Y - study conducted survey plus Face Non-parametric(one long periods (e.g. observational-no between 2003 and 2005 observational - no way ANOVA, post hoc overnight) manipulation manipulation multiple comparison test (DMRT), proportion test)

Wilson et al.; 2006 USA Free access unrestricted social access LAA 3 (0.3) observational - no Y - animals observed Observational - no Face Non-parametric indoors/outdoors 24 hours,indoor/outdoor manipulation from July - September manipulation (correlation) plus 24/7 in warmer access 24/7; 2001 descriptive statistics, months linear and quadratic regression Wilson et al. 2006 USA Activities led by ;vary time keepers arrive LAA 3 (0.3) observational - no Y - animals observed Observational - no Face Non-parametric humans at and depart to decrease manipulation from July - September manipulation (correlation) plus randomised times stereotypies; 2001 descriptive statistics, linear and quadratic regression

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 150

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.2: Social resources – appraised literature

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

thor and year and thor

Conclusions

Study design Study

Au

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Adams et al 1980 USA Physical social physical LA 7 Observational - Observational - no face non-parametric access to other contact at night as (0.7) no intervention manipulation (correlations,)varimax rotated elephants at well as day factor matrix night

Brockett et al 1999 USA Physical Not restricted social LAA 3 Observational - Observational - no Face NONE for welfare measures access to other access at night (0.3) quantitative manipulation elephants at night

Elzanowski & Sergiel Cows/young not solo housed EM 1 Observational - Observational - no Face Non-parametric tests - The 2006 Poland not lone (0.1) quantitative manipulation Friedman test, post hoc analysis housed multiple comparisons, Spearman’s rank

Garai 1992 Compatible 2+ compatible adult EM/LA Experimental Experimental- Construct Non- Parametric (Spearman’s Switzerland,Germany group females 16 EM,1 removal and :affiliative interactions correlated (affiliative LA (0.17) return w/each other);Single link cluster behaviour analysis (proximity - nearest shown, little neighbour);Percentage aggression) (approaches, each dyad member)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 151

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

thor and year and thor

Conclusions

Study design Study

Au

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Gurusamy et al. 2014 Minimum group 3+elephants EM/LA Survey Survey (expert Face None? Worldwide size 3-5 cows (females), 242 opinion) people complete d survey

Kumar et al 2014 India Bulls with Male and female LA 12 Observational – Observational – Construct Nonparametric (Mann-Whitney U, females and together; in large (4.8) no intervention no manipulation Spearman rank correlation); bulls enclosure parametric (mixed model)

Leighty et al 2009 USA Calves stay in move more when LA 7 Observational – Observational - no Face Non parametric (Pearson’s maternal group housed in complex (0.7) no intervention manipulation correlation, Wilcoxon signed social groups; ranks test), descriptive

Mueller et al. 2013 USA Cows/young always house in LA 3(0.3) observational - Observational - no face Descriptive only not lone social groups to no manipulation manipulation housed provide opportunities for social interaction; Scmid 1995 Germany Cows/young consider need for EM/LA observational - observational - no Face Non-parametric (data stratified by and Switzerland not lone constant social EM 19 no manipulation manipulation circuses and analysed using a housed contact for elephants, (0.19), stratified Wilcoxon test) even when not in LA 10 family groups. (0.10)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 152

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

thor and year and thor

Conclusions

Study design Study

Au

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Taylor 1998 Europe, N. Bulls in maintain in stable LA/EM Survey Epidemiological face America, Asia bachelor herds social groups;young NA males kept in male (survey) social groups after leave family group as juveniles;;social regulation by means of dom.hierarchy in male groups; Vanitha et al. 2011 India Calves stay in replicate basic social EM 135 Survey plus survey plus Face Non-parametric(one way ANOVA, maternal group unit of related observational-no observational - no post hoc multiple comparison test females and their manipulation manipulation (DMRT), proportion test) offspring, Vanitha et al. 2011 India Cows/young replicate basic social EM 135 Survey plus survey plus Face Non-parametric(one way ANOVA, not lone unit of related observational-no observational - no post hoc multiple comparison test housed females and their manipulation manipulation (DMRT), proportion test) offspring, chance to socialise daily, Vanitha et al. 2011 India Related herds replicate basic social EM 135 Survey plus survey plus Face Non-parametric(one way ANOVA, unit of related observational-no observational - no post hoc multiple comparison test females and their manipulation manipulation (DMRT), proportion test) offspring, maintain related individuals, Vanitha et al. 2011 India Compatible maintain related EM 135 Survey plus survey plus Face Non-parametric(one way ANOVA, group individuals, or socially observational-no observational - no post hoc multiple comparison test (affiliative compatible unrelated manipulation manipulation (DMRT), proportion test) behaviour elephants

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 153

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

thor and year and thor

Conclusions

Study design Study

Au

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method shown, little aggression) Whilde and Marples Calves stay in positive effect of calf EM 4 Observational- Observational - no Face Parametric (t tests, Mann 2011 Ireland maternal group on behaviour (0.4) no manipulation manipulation Whitney)

Wilson et al. 2006 USA Physical unrestricted social LAA 3 observational - Observational - no Face Non-parametric (correlation) plus access to the access 24 hours, (0.3) no manipulation manipulation descriptive statistics, linear and whole herd at quadratic regression night

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 154

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.3: Enrichment and food – appraised literature

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

Author and year and Author

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Adams et al Complex variety in LA 7 (0.7) Observational - observational - no face non-parametric (correlations,) varimax 1980 USA environments environment no intervention manipulation rotated factor matrix

Adams et al Toys, e.g. tyres objects can LA 7 (0.7) Observational - observational - no face non-parametric (correlations,) varimax 1980 USA manipulate in no intervention manipulation rotated factor matrix enclosure Elzanowski & Food distributed ;non-timed food EM 1 (0.1) Observational - Observational - no Face Non-parametric tests - The Friedman test, Sergiel 2006 throughout the access; quantitative manipulation post hoc analysis multiple comparisons, Poland day Spearman’s rank

Friend 1999 Food distributed non-timed food EM/LA 17 Observational - Observational - no Face largely descriptive, some non-parametric USA throughout the (0.17);14 quantitative manipulation (correlations) day EM, 3 LA

Gurusamy et al. Toys, e.g. tyres provision of EM/LA 242 Survey ?Survey (expert Face None 2014 enrichment people opinion) Worldwide completed survey

Gurusamy et al. Variety of food diverse food EM/LA 242 Survey ?Survey (expert Face None 2014 and ways of people opinion) Worldwide feeding completed survey Karunaratne, et Browse EM 3(3.0) observational - Observational - no face descriptive only: percent time feeding on al. 1999 Sri provided daily no manipulation manipulation different items;type of feeding behaviour

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 155

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

Author and year and Author

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Lanka displayed Koyama et al. Food provided provide feeding LA 1 (0.1) observational observational Face Non-parametric (Correlations – 2010 Japan in such a enrichment Spearman’s) and cluster analysis manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Mueller et al. Regular increase LA 3(0.3) observational - Observational - no face Descriptive only 2013 USA provision of environmental no manipulation manipulation novel complexity and enrichment variability to encourage investigatory behaviour; add enrichment, environmental variation indoors,to encourage natural behaviour Mueller et al. Complex increase LA 3(0.3) observational - Observational - no face Descriptive only 2013 USA environments environmental no manipulation manipulation complexity and variability to encourage

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 156

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

Author and year and Author

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method investigatory behaviour; have substrates that allow digging, dusting and manipulation; Mueller et al. Browse provide more LA 3(0.3) observational - Observational - no face Descriptive only 2013 USA provided daily natural food no manipulation manipulation sources, increase browse fed; Rees 2004 UK Food distributed EM 8 (2.6) Observational- Observational - no Face Non parametric (Pearson’s), descriptive throughout the no manipulation manipulation day

Rees 2009 UK Food distributed widely spaced EM 8 (2.6) Observational- Observational - no Face Non-parametric (Pearson’s), descriptive throughout the feeders that release no manipulation manipulation day food slowly (caution overnutrition) Rees 2009 UK Food provided recommend feeder EM 8 (2.6) Observational- Observational - no Face Non-parametric (Pearson’s), descriptive through devices no manipulation manipulation mechanical (EE),introduce feeders at unpredictability in unpredictable mgmt regimes, times espec feeding regimes.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 157

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

Author and year and Author

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Rees 2009 UK Food provided recommend feeder EM 8 (2.6) Observational- Observational - no Face Non-parametric (Pearson’s), descriptive in such a devices (EE), no manipulation manipulation manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Stoinski et al Browse feeding browse LA 3 (0.3) Experimental experimental-add Face Parametric (Friedman ANOVA to assess 2000 USA provided daily significantly then remove whether behaviours affected by addition of increased time browse) spent feeding Taylor 1998 Browse more bulky food LA/EM NA Survey Epidemiological face Europe, N. provided daily and browse (less (survey) America, Asia nutritious); Taylor 1998 Grass for ;opportunities to LA/EM NA Survey Epidemiological face Europe, N. grazing graze; (survey) America, Asia provided all day all year round

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 158

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

size

welfare Validity

Statistics

Conclusions

Study design Study

Author and year and Author

Recommendation

Species and sample sample and Species Method of assessing assessing of Method Taylor 1998 Food provided ;puzzle feeders; LA/EM NA Survey Epidemiological face Europe, N. in such a (survey) America, Asia manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Taylor 1998 Scatter feed or ;encourage LA/EM NA Survey Epidemiological face Europe, N. similar that movement to obtain (survey) America, Asia encourages food; exercise Wells and Irwin Auditory significantly less EM 4 (0.4) Experimental experimental (ABA) Face Non-parametric (Friedman ANOVA to 2008 Ireland stimulation, e.g. time stereotyping (ABA, repeated) assess whether behaviours affected by music when classical auditory enrichment) music played

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 159

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.4: Enclosures - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Morford opinion Activities led by humans at walking/exercise led by keepers reduced aggression in an elephant scheduled times case study Martos (MSc) study Activities led by humans at elephants stereotyped in anticipation of scheduled events- if scheduled times scheduled events are necessary then they should be consistent in timing with clear cues Brown et al (2008) opinion Activities led by humans at activities that are led by people should be at predictable times, but scheduled times doesn’t stipulate that many activities should be led by humans Varma and Prasad opinion Activities not human led (no or few allow free ranging to enable choice scheduled events) Lehnhardt opinion Activities not human led (no or few Based on give elephants opportunity for choice- where to be, what scheduled events) elephants to be with, what to do and when to do it Kane, Forthman opinion Activities not human led (no or few reasonable autonomy and Hancocks scheduled events) (2005) Lee and Moss opinion Activities not human led (no or few (2009) scheduled events) Martos (MSc) study Activities not human led (no or few elephants stereotyped in anticipation of scheduled events scheduled events) Brown et al (2008) opinion Activities not human led (no or few elephants should have choice/control, and when activities are scheduled events) human led they are should be at predictable timings Lehnhardt opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 in warmer months Olson elephant opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 husbandry in warmer months resource guide Garrison (2008) opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 should not be confined indoors in warmer months Endres et al. (2004) opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 doesn't specify all year round? year round Kinzley (2006) study Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 all but eliminated stereotypy between 5am-7am

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 160

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion year round Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 year round Clubb and Mason study Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 year round Lee and Moss opinion Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 (2009) year round Martos (MSc) study Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 elephants stereotyped in anticipation of entry and exit from indoors year round Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Never chained Wiedenmayer et al peer- Never chained don't chain/tether; restricts behavioural choices and impacts opinion decision making, cannot react according to its emotional state Varma and Prasad opinion Not chained for long periods (e.g. only in extreme cases overnight) Stead (2000) study Not chained for long periods (e.g. avoid overnight shackling overnight) Kane, Forthman opinion Not chained for long periods (e.g. freedom from extended periods of chaining and Hancocks overnight) (2005) Clubb and Mason study Not chained for long periods (e.g. overnight) Kirkden & Broom study Not chained for long periods (e.g. circus facility overnight) Kurt & Garai study Not chained for long periods (e.g. chaining resulted in stereotypy, In extensively kept bulls, which are overnight) kept in chains when not working, stereotypies were found to appear very rare Mallapur et al peer- Not chained for long periods (e.g. don't chain long periods (2009) survey overnight) Poole and opinion Not chained for long periods (e.g. Moss(2008) book overnight) Garrison (2008) opinion Not chained for long periods (e.g.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 161

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion overnight) Hutchins et al opinion Not chained for long periods (e.g. (2008) overnight) Varma and Prasad opinion Indoor space allowance double 0.5 hectares/ elephant shelter** current minimum requirements (i.e. 100 sqm/elephant) Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Indoor space allowance double should be greater than 14.5m2 ** current minimum requirements (i.e. 100 sqm/elephant) Harris, Sherwin and study Indoor space allowance to meet Harris (2008) current minimum requirements (50 sqm/elephant) Endres et al. (2004) opinion Outdoor space allowance double recommend at least 1 ha = 10,000 sq m** current minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant) Varma and Prasad opinion Outdoor space allowance double 1% of wild space current minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant) Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Outdoor space allowance double should be greater than 140m2** current minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant) Harris, Sherwin and study Outdoor space allowance double Harris (2008) current minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant) Poole and Moss opinion Outdoor space allowance equal to 50-70km2 stated ** natural home range size Olson elephant opinion Outdoor space allowance to meet 167sqm per ele much larger if male present husbandry current minimum requirements resource guide (500 sqm/elephant) Mallapur et al peer- Complex environments ;complex enclosures; (2009) survey

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 162

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Endres et al. (2004) opinion Complex environments Quality of living space more important than size of enclosure Endres et al. (2004) opinion Complex environments recommends varied structure and landscape including hills or other landscaping features Varma and Prasad opinion Complex environments Poole And Taylor opinion Complex environments (1999) Poole and Granli opinion Complex environments Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Complex environments Olson elephant opinion Complex environments husbandry resource guide Poole and Moss opinion Complex environments Poole and Moss opinion Complex environments Lee and Moss opinion Complex environments (2009) Kirkden & Broom study Complex environments circus facility Veasey peer- Complex environments environmental complexity opinion Hancocks (2008) opinion Complex environments Olson elephant opinion More than one entrance/exit husbandry between houses/paddocks resource guide Olson elephant opinion Natural light indoors husbandry resource guide Endres et al. (2004) opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) recommends hills consisting of clay and soil- slippery when wet and soft when hard which is good for climbing and keeping busy, foot care, low ranking individuals can be out of sight Poole And Taylor opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) Topography for avoidance and concealment (1999)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 163

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Lehnhardt opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) outdoors Trez and Wright study Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) added mounds of dirt which created barrier s, encouraged walking and exercise, softened ground reduces stress on feet Kane, Forthman opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) and Hancocks (2005) Poole and Granli opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) Roocroft (2005) opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) Indoors substrate that allows for topography variations Olson elephant opinion Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) husbandry resource guide Endres et al. (2004) opinion Elephant made mud wallows recommends elephants have opportunity to create mud baths Trez and Wright study Furniture which enables scratching post installed , sandstone boulders scratching/rubbing Thomas (BSc study Furniture which enables study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this project) scratching/rubbing resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Olson elephant opinion Furniture which enables husbandry scratching/rubbing resource guide Brown et al (2008) opinion Furniture which enables scratching/rubbing Hancocks (2008) opinion Furniture which enables scratching/rubbing Hutchins et al opinion Furniture which enables (2008) scratching/rubbing Angele, Glyns, study Furniture which enables as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of Asian Barber and scratching/rubbing but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily Ploughman (1999) accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Thomas (BSc study Furniture which encourages study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this project) stretching/climbing resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 164

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion stereotypy and inactivity

Hnath study Large logs Introduced time consuming enrichment including large logs= enrichment use increased, resting decreased, stereotypies decreased and wandering around yard decreased Poole And Taylor opinion Large logs (1999) Thomas (BSc study Large logs study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this project) resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Olson elephant opinion Large logs husbandry resource guide Endres et al. (2004) opinion Places to hide from other recommends hills consisting of clay and soil- slippery when wet and individuals (i.e. visual barriers, soft when hard which is good for climbing and keeping busy, different areas) footcare, low ranking individuals can be out of sight Poole And Taylor opinion Places to hide from other Topography for avoidance and concealment (1999) individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Olson elephant opinion Places to hide from other husbandry individuals (i.e. visual barriers, resource guide different areas) Lee and Moss opinion Places to hide from other (2009) individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Veasey peer- Places to hide from other visual barriers opinion individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Olson elephant opinion Places to hide from public (i.e. husbandry visual barriers, different areas) resource guide Kane, Forthman opinion Shelter from sun

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 165

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion and Hancocks (2005) Olson elephant opinion Shelter from sun husbandry resource guide Hancocks (2008) opinion Shelter from sun elephant and ethics Kane, Forthman opinion Shelter from wind and Hancocks (2005) Mallapur et al peer- Mud ;mud wallow; furniture for scratching; water (2009) survey Mallapur et al peer- Furniture which enables furniture for scratching; (2009) survey scratching/rubbing Mallapur et al peer- Water in the form of a wallow ;water (2009) survey Olson elephant opinion Visual barriers husbandry resource guide Poole And Taylor opinion Water feature which is heated in (1999) the winter Varma and Prasad opinion Water in the form of a deep pool should be allowed to immerse whole body Poole And Taylor opinion Water in the form of a deep pool Water for bathing, swimming, diving (so must be deep), skin care, (1999) splashing and water play Poole And Taylor opinion Water in the form of a deep pool (1999) Olson elephant opinion Water in the form of a deep pool husbandry resource guide Garrison (2008) opinion Water in the form of a deep pool elephants and ethics

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 166

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Hancocks (2008) opinion Water in the form of a deep pool multiple forms of water should be available and must include elephant and ethics submerge possibility Endres et al. (2004) opinion Water in the form of a deep pool with a shallow entrance Lehnhardt opinion Water in the form of a shallow pool water should be provided for bathing, cooling and play, shallow water features for wading and water play Kane, Forthman opinion Water in the form of a shallow pool size/depth not specified and Hancocks (2005) Brown et al (2008) opinion Water in the form of a shallow pool depth of pool not specified elephant and ethics book Hutchins et al opinion Water in the form of a shallow pool depth not specified (2008) elephant ethics book Olson elephant opinion Water in the form of a husbandry sprinkler/shower resource guide Hancocks (2008) opinion Water in the form of a multiple forms of water should be available and must include elephant and ethics sprinkler/shower submerge possibility Poole And Taylor opinion Water in the form of a wallow (1999) Trez and Wright study Water in the form of a wallow Olson elephant opinion Water in the form of a wallow multiple husbandry resource guide Brown et al (2008) opinion Water in the form of a wallow elephant and ethics book Hancocks (2008) opinion Water in the form of a wallow multiple forms of water should be available and must include elephant and ethics submerge possibility

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 167

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Hutchins et al opinion Water in the form of a wallow (2008) elephant ethics book Olson elephant opinion Water in the form of a waterfall husbandry resource guide Hancocks (2008) opinion Water in the form of a waterfall multiple forms of water should be available and must include elephant and ethics submerge possibility Veasey peer- Heated shelter in winter heated shelter in winter outdoors opinion Olson elephant opinion Large barrier between public and husbandry elephants to minimise disturbance resource guide Kane, Forthman opinion Protection from infrasound in the decibel level and frequency of noise should be minimised, there and Hancocks environment should be year round access to quiet space both indoors and (2005) outdoors Poole and Granli opinion Protection from infrasound in the environment Bhattacharjee study protection from infrasound in the study from infrasound range would interrupt some vocalisations environment Endres et al. (2004) opinion Clay recommends hills consisting of clay and soil- slippery when wet and soft when hard which is good for climbing and keeping busy, footcare, low ranking individuals can be out of sight Lehnhardt opinion clay outdoors Endres et al. (2004) opinion Earth/soil natural substrates with soil, grass and sand Lehnhardt opinion Earth/soil outdoors Lehnhardt opinion Earth/soil Dust for skincare sun protection and insect deterrent Kane, Forthman opinion Earth/soil and Hancocks (2005) Olson elephant opinion Earth/soil

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 168

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion husbandry resource guide Garrison (2008) opinion Earth/soil natural substrate elephants and ethics Hancocks (2008) opinion Earth/soil sand or earth elephant and ethics Poole And Taylor opinion Mud Varied substrates including grass, mud and sand (1999) Lehnhardt opinion mud Kane, Forthman opinion mud mud features and Hancocks (2005) Garrison (2008) opinion Mud natural substrate elephants and ethics Lehnhardt opinion Rubber flooring indoors Clubb and Mason study Rubber flooring for indoor enclosures Olson elephant opinion Rubber flooring Indoors-not concrete husbandry resource guide Endres et al. (2004) opinion Sand natural substrates with soil, grass and sand, sand zones for sand showers Poole And Taylor opinion Sand Varied substrates including grass, mud and sand (1999) Lehnhardt opinion sand outdoors Lehnhardt opinion Sand indoors Trez and Wright study sand Roocroft (2005) opinion Sand Indoors Olson elephant opinion Sand multiple sand piles husbandry

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 169

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion resource guide Williams, Bremner- study sand indoors- Lying rest was shown most on sand Harrison, Harvey, Evison and Yon Brown et al (2008) opinion Sand elephant and ethics book Garrison (2008) opinion Sand natural substrate elephants and ethics Hancocks (2008) opinion Sand sand or earth elephant and ethics Olson elephant opinion Sawdust Indoors-not concrete husbandry resource guide Endres et al. (2004) opinion Variety of substrates natural substrates with soil, grass and sand Poole And Taylor opinion Variety of substrates for foraging wallowing, digging and social play (1999) Lehnhardt opinion Variety of substrates outdoors Kane, Forthman opinion Variety of substrates and Hancocks (2005) Olson elephant opinion Variety of substrates husbandry resource guide **units are reported using the original units used in the literature

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 170

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.5: Social - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Poole And Taylor (1999) opinion Mixed sexes herd (bull separated musth not specified at times other than musth) Rees (2000) opinion Mixed sexes herd (bull separated when bull should be separated was not stated at times other than musth) Endres et al. (2004) opinion Mixed sexes herd (bull separated recommends natural social groupings with bulls sepearted from during musth only) group during musth only Varma and Prasad opinion Mixed sexes herd (bull separated musth not mentioned? during musth only) Veasey peer- Bulls in bachelor herds bulls in bachelor herds with enough space to get away from each opinion other if conflict Varma and Prasad opinion Bulls not lone housed elephants should not be kept alone Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Bulls not lone housed Clubb and Mason study Bulls not lone housed Olson elephant opinion Bulls not lone housed should have access to other elephants for some time each day husbandry resource guide Poole and Moss opinion Bulls not lone housed Kurt & Garai (2001) study Bulls not lone housed social isolation increased stereotypy Rees (2000) opinion Bulls not lone housed Schulte (in elephant opinion Bulls not lone housed biology book) Poole and Moss(2008) opinion Bulls not lone housed elephant ethics book Garrison (2008) opinion Bulls not lone housed elephants and ethics Varma and Prasad opinion Calves stay in maternal group calves need to spend time with mothers and other elephants Lehnhardt opinion Calves stay in maternal group for female elephants opportunity for reproduction and calf rearing and maintenance of long-term relationships with female relative

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 171

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Kane, Forthman and opinion Calves stay in maternal group females calves only, mentioned except in exceptional Hancocks (2005) circumstances Clubb and Mason study Calves stay in maternal group males until 10-15 years; females for life Poole and Granli opinion Calves stay in maternal group Schulte peer- Calves stay in maternal group calves provide social cohesion for group opinion Clubb et al peer- Calves stay in maternal group don't remove calves from mothers (to reduce calf mortality) review Poole and Moss(2008) opinion Calves stay in maternal group females always, males until natural dispersal age elephant ethics book Garrison (2008) opinion Calves stay in maternal group females always and males until 10-14 years of age elephants and ethics Hancocks (2008) opinion Calves stay in maternal group elephant and ethics Hutchins et al (2008) opinion Calves stay in maternal group females always and males until maturity elephant ethics book Poole And Taylor (1999) opinion Compatible group (affiliative behaviour shown, little aggression) Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Compatible group (affiliative behaviour shown, little aggression) Veasey peer- Compatible group (affiliative females in compatible herds; remove those not compatible opinion behaviour shown, little aggression) Brown et al (2008) opinion Compatible group (affiliative elephant and ethics behaviour shown, little aggression) book Varma and Prasad opinion Cows/young not lone housed elephants should not be kept alone Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Cows/young not lone housed Harris, Sherwin and opinion Cows/young not lone housed supported Harris (2008) Clubb and Mason study Cows/young not lone housed Poole and Moss opinion Cows/young not lone housed

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 172

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Kurt & Garai study Cows/young not lone housed social isolation increased stereotypy Rees (2000) opinion Cows/young not lone housed Schulte (in elephant opinion Cows/young not lone housed biology book) Rees peer- Cows/young not lone housed interactions with other elephants provides single most important opinion form of enrichment; not single or pair housed Poole and Moss(2008) opinion Cows/young not lone housed elephant ethics book Garrison (2008) opinion Cows/young not lone housed elephants and ethics Mallapur et al (2009) peer- Cows/young not lone housed elephants not housed singly survey Hutchins et al (2008) opinion Cows/young not lone housed elephant ethics book Lehnhardt opinion Herd with a wide range of ages Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Herd with a wide range of ages Lee and Moss (2009) opinion Herd with a wide range of ages Rees (2000) opinion Herd with a wide range of ages Schulte peer- Herd with a wide range of ages teenage cows learn maternal behaviour from allomothering calves opinion of others Hancocks (2008) opinion Herd with a wide range of ages elephant and ethics Poole and Moss opinion Minimum group size 11+ cows Poole And Taylor (1999) opinion Minimum group size 3-5 cows Olson elephant opinion Minimum group size 3-5 cows husbandry resource guide Veasey peer- Minimum group size 3-5 cows 3-4 compatible related elephants to form nucleus of new herds opinion

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 173

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study or Reference Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Hutchins et al (2008) opinion Minimum group size 3-5 cows elephant ethics book Mallapur et al (2009) peer- Minimum group size 3-5 cows house 3-4 adult females and their calves survey Rees (2000) opinion Minimum group size 6 – 10 cows Lee and Moss opinion Mixed sexes herd (bull never separated) Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Physical access to other elephants at night Lee and Moss (2009) opinion Physical access to other elephants at night Brown et al (2008) opinion Physical access to other elephants at night Riley (2014) study Related herds Kurt & Garai study Related herds Veasey peer- Related herds females in related herds opinion Lehnhardt opinion Related herds Kane, Forthman and opinion Stable and consistent hierarchy stable social group Hancocks (2005) Garrison (2008) opinion Stable and consistent hierarchy stable and consistent groups- hierarchy not mentioned elephants and ethics

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 174

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Table J.6: Food and enrichment - grey literature/opinion/books/other literature Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Olson elephant opinion Auditory stimulation, e.g. music in the form of recorded vocalizations of different species husbandry resource guide Melo (1999) opinion Auditory stimulation, e.g. music Gambertogio opinion Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime recommended interactive sound enrichment like elephant chimes Thomas (BSc project) study Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Olson elephant opinion Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime husbandry resource guide Melo (1999) opinion Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime Angele, Glyns, Barber study Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) asian but less successful for african. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Olson elephant opinion Live trees husbandry resource guide Hancocks (2008) opinion Live trees elephant and ethics Thomas (BSc project) study Olfactory stimulation, e.g. novel scents study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Olson elephant opinion Olfactory stimulation, e.g. novel scents husbandry resource guide Poole And Taylor opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment (1999)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 175

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Haight (1994) opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment Thomas (BSc project) study Regular provision of novel enrichment study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Clubb and Mason study Regular provision of novel enrichment To indoor as well as outdoor environment Olson elephant opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment husbandry resource guide Heinkel study Regular provision of novel enrichment Brown et al (2008) opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment elephant and ethics book Garrison (2008) opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment elephants and ethics Hutchins et al (2008) opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment elephant ethics book Mallapur et al (2009) peer- Toys, e.g. tyres provide enrichment; survey Mallapur et al (2009) peer- Trees/branches provide trees & branches survey Mellen et al (2008) opinion Regular provision of novel enrichment some good ideas in this book chapter about enrichment elephant and ethics programmes and how to monitor and evaluate them book Angele, Glyns, Barber study Regular provision of novel enrichment as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Hnath study Toys, e.g. tyres Introduced time consuming enrichment including toys= enrichment use increased, resting decreased, stereotypies decreased and wandering around yard decreased Gambertogio opinion Toys, e.g. tyres recommended to smash or spar

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 176

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Poole And Taylor opinion Toys, e.g. tyres for use of tools, curiosity and play (1999) Lehnhardt opinion Toys, e.g. tyres need things to manipulate for play Landucci et al. (1999) opinion Toys, e.g. tyres painting as enrichment for eles? Thomas (BSc project) study Toys, e.g. tyres study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Olson elephant opinion Toys, e.g. tyres husbandry resource guide Angele, Glyns, Barber study Toys, e.g. tyres as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Lehnhardt opinion Trees/branches things to explore e.g. tree branches or irregularly shaped stumps Gambertogio opinion Unbreakable mirror believed to provide cognitive enrichment Lehnhardt opinion All food placed high up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Poole And Taylor opinion Browse provided daily not specified daily?- vegetation for manipulation and (1999) selective feeding - up to 200 species used in object play Lehnhardt opinion Browse provided daily Kane, Forthman and opinion Browse provided daily Hancocks (2005) Kinzley (2006) study Browse provided daily Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Browse provided daily Olson elephant opinion Browse provided daily daily not specified husbandry resource guide Duer (2004) study Browse provided daily browse time interacting highest of all enrichment devices

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 177

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Hatt & Clauss peer- Browse provided daily provide browse regularly review Brown et al (2008) opinion Browse provided daily daily not specified elephant and ethics book Hancocks (2008) opinion Browse provided daily elephant and ethics Lehnhardt opinion Food distributed throughout the day Kinzley (2006) study Food distributed throughout the day actually the night! Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Food distributed throughout the day Weisz, Wustenhagen opinion Food distributed throughout the day during early hours of the morning & Schwammer Veasey peer- Food distributed throughout the day food should be available 24 hours, low quality high bulk food opinion Haight (1994) opinion Food placed high up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Kinzley (2006) study Food placed high up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Olson elephant opinion Food placed high up so that elephants must husbandry resource stretch to reach it guide Law and Kitchener opinion Food placed high up so that elephants must posts to shake food out of to encourage natural behaviour stretch to reach it Angele, Glyns, Barber study Food placed high up so that elephants must as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) stretch to reach it Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Poole And Taylor opinion Food provided in such a manner which hidden food for foraging, learning, developing skills, (1999) provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle searching and finding feeders, hidden treats, etc.)

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 178

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Poole And Taylor opinion Food provided in such a manner which (1999) provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Trez and Wright study Food provided in such a manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Haight (1994) opinion Food provided in such a manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Thomas (BSc project) study Food provided in such a manner which study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced feeders, hidden treats, etc.) stereotypy and inactivity Kinzley (2006) study Food provided in such a manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Olson elephant opinion Food provided in such a manner which husbandry resource provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle guide feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Veasey peer- Food provided in such a manner which food requiring manipulation or work for food opinion provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Hatt & Clauss peer- Food provided in such a manner which provide food requiring complex task to obtain (enrichment) review provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Wanda (Bsc) study Food provided in such a manner which food hidden in a log in paste increased behavioural diversity provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle and object manipulation in 2 elephants, one Asian one feeders, hidden treats, etc.) African Angele, Glyns, study Food provided in such a manner which as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of Barber and provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in Ploughman (1999) feeders, hidden treats, etc.) easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Trez and Wright study Food provided through mechanical feeders predictable/unpredictable not specified

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 179

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion at predictable times Weisz, Wustenhagen opinion Food provided through mechanical feeders Timings not specified. Mechanical feedings during early & Schwammer at predictable times hours suggested based on study finding much activity in night time. Hancocks (2008) opinion Food provided through mechanical feeders elephant and ethics at unpredictable times Veasey peer- Grass for grazing provided all day all year access to grass for grazing opinion round Poole And Taylor opinion Grass for grazing provided for some time (1999) each day all year round Kinzley (2006) study Grass for grazing provided for some time each day all year round Poole And Taylor opinion Grass for grazing provided for some time timing not specified- Varied substrates including grass, mud (1999) each day during the summer and sand Carpenter(animal study Scatter feed or similar that encourages keepers forum) exercise Varma and Prasad opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Poole And Taylor opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages hidden food for foraging, learning, developing skills, (1999) exercise searching and finding Lehnhardt opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Poole and Granli opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Thomas (BSc project) study Scatter feed or similar that encourages study based on enrichment programme for 2 elephants this exercise resource was part of an enrichment programme that reduced stereotypy and inactivity Kinzley (2006) study Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Zoos Forum (2010) opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 180

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Olson elephant opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages husbandry resource exercise guide Poole and Granli opinion Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Angele, Glyns, Barber study Scatter feed or similar that encourages as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) exercise Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration Trez and Wright study Some food placed high up so that elephants increased foraging time must stretch to reach it Bjork (BSc thesis)/ study Some food placed high up so that elephants hay nets increased time spent foraging Sjoberg must stretch to reach it Hancocks (2008) opinion Some food placed high up so that elephants elephant and ethics must stretch to reach it Carpenter(animal study Variety of food and ways of feeding range of feeding strategies keepers forum) Endres et al. (2004) opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding recommend food is distributed Poole And Taylor opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding (1999) Lehnhardt surgery opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding and medicine Lee and Moss (2009) opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding Durham (2007) opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding Gilbert and Hare opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding elephant feeder balls (1994) Hancocks (2008) opinion Variety of food and ways of feeding elephant and ethics Angele, Glyns, Barber study Variety of food and ways of feeding as part of an enrichment programme improved behaviour of and Ploughman (1999) Asian but less successful for African. Not providing food in easily accessible manner did sometimes result in frustration

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 181

Appendix J: Summary tables of literature on resources of importance to elephants

Study Reference or Recommendation Evidence summary opinion Gracia et al; (internal study Variety of food and ways of feeding specifically introducing wire hay nets increased feeding time zoo study) and reduced stereotypy in 1/2 elephants studied.

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 182

Appendix K: Summary of resources identified by focus group teleconference participants

Table K.1: Resources identified by stakeholder focus group participants Environment Type Resource Example/Detail Physical environment Browse Enrichment Facilities for bulls Feeding opportunities Live trees Mixed exhibit Primates Antelopes Birds Movement or exercise opportunities Mud wallow Opportunities for scratching or rubbing Substrate Sand Bark Woodchip Concrete Terrain Training or management Protected contact walls facilities Ability to isolate for veterinary treatment Visual barriers Water features Woodland Social environment Compatibility Group composition Ages Sexes Group dynamics Dominance hierarchy Strong matriarch Group size Management of bulls Bachelor herds Access to family group Relatedness Other environmental 24 hour access to resources features Choice Complexity Humidity Light Space Temperature

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 183

Appendix L: Finalised lists of resources identified from literature and focus groups

L.1 Enclosure-related resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups

Activities led by humans at randomised times Activities led by humans at scheduled times Activities not human led (no or few scheduled events) Bark/woodchip Clay Complex environments Concrete Earth/soil Elephant enclosure not near enclosures of natural predators Elephant made mud wallows Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 in warmer months Free access indoors/outdoors 24/7 year round Furniture which enables scratching/rubbing Furniture which encourages stretching/climbing Good artificial lighting Heated shelter in winter Indoor space allowance double current minimum requirements (i.e. 100 sqm/elephant) Indoor space allowance to meet current minimum requirements (50 sqm/elephant) Large barrier between public and elephants to minimise disturbance Man-made mud wallows Mixed species exhibits More than one entrance/exit between houses/paddocks Mud Natural light indoors Never chained Not chained for long periods (e.g. overnight) Not chained for short periods (e.g. training) Outdoor space allowance double current minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant) Outdoor space allowance equal to natural home range size Outdoor space allowance to meet current minimum requirements (500 sqm/elephant) Places to hide from other individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Places to hide from public (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Protection from infrasound in the environment Restricted access indoors/outdoors in colder months Restricted access indoors/outdoors in warmer months Restricted access indoors/outdoors year round Rubber flooring Sand Sawdust Shelter from sun Shelter from wind Variety of substrates Variety of terrain (e.g. mounds) Visual barriers Water feature which is heated in the winter

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 184

Appendix L: Finalised list of resources from literature and focus groups

Water in the form of a deep pool Water in the form of a deep pool with a shallow entrance Water in the form of a shallow pool Water in the form of a sprinkler/shower Water in the form of a wallow Water in the form of a waterfall Woodland

L.2 Social resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups

Auditory and visual access to other elephants at night Auditory and visual access to the whole herd at night Bull lone housed with auditory, visual or olfactory communication with other elephants Bulls in bachelor herds Bulls not lone housed Bulls with females and bulls Bulls with females and young Bulls with females only Calves stay in maternal group Compatible group (affiliative behaviour shown, little aggression) Cows lone housed with auditory, visual or olfactory communication with other elephants Cows/young not lone housed Herd with a wide range of ages Minimum group size 11+ cows Minimum group size 3-5 cows Minimum group size 6 – 10 cows Mixed sexes herd (bull never separated) Mixed sexes herd (bull separated at times other than musth) Mixed sexes herd (bull separated during musth only) Physical access to other elephants at night Physical access to the whole herd at night Related herds Stable and consistent hierarchy Strong matriarch

L.3: Feeding and enrichment-related resources of importance to elephants identified from literature and stakeholder focus groups

Auditory stimulation, e.g. music Browse provided daily Food distributed throughout the day Food placed high up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Food provided in such a manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Food provided through mechanical feeders at predictable times Food provided through mechanical feeders at unpredictable times Grass for grazing provided all day all year round Grass for grazing provided all day only in the summer Grass for grazing provided for some time each day all year round Grass for grazing provided for some time each day during the summer Interactive auditory stimulation, e.g. chime

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 185

Appendix L: Finalised list of resources from literature and focus groups

Large logs Live trees Olfactory stimulation, e.g. novel scents Regular provision of novel enrichment Scatter feed or similar that encourages exercise Some food placed high up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Toys, e.g. tyres Trees/branches Unbreakable mirror Variety of food and ways of feeding

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 186

Appendix M: Stakeholder workshop agenda

Developing behavioural indicators, as part of a wider set of indicators, to assess the welfare of elephants in UK zoos (WC1081)

Stakeholder Workshop Agenda

17 December 2014

09:15 – 17:00

West Midlands Safari Park, Bewdley, Worcestershire

09:15 – 09:50 Registration (tea and coffee available)

Morning Session 1

09:50 – 10:00 Welcome

10:00 – 10:30 Resources of importance to wild African elephants Phyllis C Lee Psychology, School of Natural Science, University of Stirling & Director of Science, Amboseli Trust for Elephants, Kenya

While some zoo keepers and managers believe that the most appropriate comparative context for captive elephants is the captive environment, in the absence of a wild comparator we are unable to know the range, diversity and frequency of normative behaviour for welfare assessments. I present some data on African elephant behavioural and social flexibility based on data from one longitudinally studied population in Kenya. The emphasis is on (a) flexibility and (b) choice and/or opportunities for choice as key elements underlying the behaviour of wild elephants. For example, when group sizes typically vary from 2 to 200 in any 24 hr period, should we mandate group size? And the nature of the relationships among group members is what determines welfare; wild elephants with fission-fusion have choice over who, when and where they want to associate. I also present data on 24hr movements, home ranges and activities, again emphasising the diversity of activities and habitats and the choices that are part of any elephant’s day, whether male or female. If we are serious about addressing the welfare gaps in the UK’s population of captive elephants, we need to be able to introduce choice,

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 187

Appendix M: Stakeholder workshop agenda

diversity, flexibility and challenges into the lives of captive elephants. We also need to manage for the distinctive needs of the sexes, but not to create separate solitary bulls. The social lives of males are as complex and full of choice are those of females, with even greater demands for space, movement, and complexity.

10:30 – 11:00 Resources of importance to wild Asian elephants Shermin De Silva, Director - Udawalawe Elephant Research Project & Fellow - Institute for Advanced Studies, Berlin

Asian elephants occupy a wide array of habitats ranging from dense, evergreen, closed-canopy forest to dry deciduous savanna-like grass- and scrubland. Elephants have the versatility to thrive in these diverse environments, according to which their needs must correspondingly vary. My perspective is drawn from observations of wild free-ranging elephants in tropical deciduous savannah-like scrubland, where water and vegetation resources are seasonally variable. In this context, where the population of elephants is quite dense (> 3.5 / sq. km), adults spend the majority of their lives feeding (grazing primarily), moving, or resting. The daily routine is dictated largely by the weather and temperature. It is clear that there are two resources that are especially sought by elephants in daily activity – water, and mud. Water sources provide the opportunity for both bathing and play. Likewise mud provides opportunity for not only wallowing, but social interaction and bonding (through mutual scrubbing). A third resource consisting of dry sand or dust completes the ritual, but also allows individuals to express ambivalence or mild threat. Fourth is the resource of physical space. Asian elephants exhibit dominance behavior but not hierarchical relations (SdS, in prep). Conflict resolution occurs through movement rather than establishment of hierarchy, thus the ability to get away is critical for maintaining peaceful relations. I focus on these resources because they are typically less emphasized than choice of food, substrate etc. and yet are nevertheless essential for allowing elephants to express and enjoy their natural behavioral repertoire. I conclude with some creative methods that have been used in captivity to ‘interrogate’ animals about their own preferences and priorities regarding enclosure accessories and conditions using economic reasoning.

11:00 – 11:15 Coffee break

Morning Session 2 11:15 – 11:30 Development and play behaviour in young Asian and African elephants Lizzie Webber, University of Stirling

11:30 – 11:45 Improving welfare through decision making opportunities Chris Lucas,

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 188

Appendix M: Stakeholder workshop agenda

Team Leader, Large Mammals - Blair Drummond Safari Park The elephants at Blair Drummond Safari Park have lead a very traditional zoo life for their 40 plus years in captivity. Their daily lives have been governed by the decision making of the keeping staff, and while this was done with the best intentions it is now felt that this approach has probably been detrimental to their psychological and physical welfare. Regardless of how much experience an individual keeper has, they are never going to be able to know what an elephant wants from a certain situation. Only the elephant is capable of knowing that. With the recent redevelopment of the new indoor habitat we aim to completely change our approach to elephant management and allow a far greater freedom in decision making to all the individuals that we will house here in the hope that it will offer them a far higher quality of life.

11:45 – 12:00 Management of a related herd of Asian elephants in captivity Gerry Creighton Operations Manager - Dublin Zoo The Asian elephant is facing a very uncertain future in its’ natural habitat – rapidly expanding human populations, poaching and habitat fragmentation are putting remaining numbers of Asian elephants under extreme pressure. This once wide-ranging species is now increasingly restricted to pockets of habitat that can only sustain potentially unviable populations of animals. This presentation will discuss the role that the modern Zoo can play in the conservation of the world’s largest land mammal. Elephants have traditionally been the star attractions in many menageries and Zoo’s, so how have we kept them? To what end? And how has elephant management evolved? This presentation will discuss key aspects of elephant welfare, husbandry, enrichment and facility design, with specific reference to the development of Dublin Zoo’s ground-breaking elephant programme, before showing videos of the three most recent births within the herd.

12:00 – 12:15 Management of elephants at The Elephant Sanctuary, Tennessee (TBC) Sandra De Rek Head Elephant Keeper - Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm

12:15 – 13:00 Lunch

Afternoon Session 1 13:00 – 15:00 Discussion: Identifying resources of importance to elephants

Afternoon Session 2 15:00 – 17:00 Elephant Focus Group Update

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 189

Appendix N: Stakeholder workshop attendee register

Project Team Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm  Lucy Asher  Sandra Da Rek  Oliver Burman  Hazel Smith  Ros Clubb Paignton Zoo  Samantha Bremner-Harrison  Matthew Webb  Ellen Williams  Holly Farmer  Lisa Yon Twycross Zoo External Expert Advisors  Sarah Chapman  Matt Hartley  Julian Chapman  John Eddison  Lisa Langston University of Stirling West Midlands Safari Park  Lizzie Webber  Lawrence Bates Blair Drummond Safari Park  Katie McDonald  Chris Lucas  Lewis Hodson

Dublin Zoo Whipsnade Zoo  Gerry Creighton  Lee Sambrook  Nic Masters Howlett’s Wild Animal Park  Fiona Sach  Neil Spooner  Line Monange Woburn Safari Park  Terry Shelton Knowsley Safari Park  Alex Spooner Blackpool Zoo  Steven Cunningham  Adam Keyon

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 190

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

The following three tables list each of the resources, in order of the ranking (from 1-10) assigned by the stakeholder participants at the workshop. Comments made by the groups are included. For the physical resources (Tables O.2 and O.3), there is a column indicating whether the resource is located indoors or outdoors.

Table O.1: Social resources - workshop mean rankings

Resource Comments Mean Range

Calves stay in maternal group females to stay and males to leave at some stage; under 5 years; 10.0 10 depends on age and sex- females yes, males split at what age?; vertical splits; females; females Bulls with females and young ability to separate if he wants; if lone housed this is essential; 9.2 7-10 depends on bull and age and history of housing; if have to be lone housed need contact Auditory and visual access to the 9.0 4-10 whole herd at night Compatible group (affiliative constrained by population/scenario; 9.0 7-10 behaviour shown, little aggression)

Cows/young not lone housed depends on age of calf and maturity 9.0 7-10

Herd with a wide range of ages depends; quality not quantity; its about the welfare and the 9.0 7-10 individuals; COMPATIBLE cows; strong family group; if related and compatible

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 191

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Resource Comments Mean Range

Physical access to the whole herd unless incompatible or unrelated; if compatible, if problems need to 8.8 4-10 at night be able to separate; depends on compatibility, choice. Indoor (restricted space) then no, if have outdoor access far more important Auditory and visual access to other depends; physical access whole herd ranked as 10; auditory but 8.8 4-10 elephants at night not visual access; essential for cows but important for bulls;

Physical access to other elephants if compatible; access to whole herd ranked as 10; bulls 5 but cows 8.8 4-10 at night 10; depends on individuals; Bull lone housed with auditory, if lone housed this is essential; depends on bull and age and 8.6 4-10 visual or olfactory communication history of housing; if have to be lone housed need contact with other elephants

Bulls with females and bulls lots of dependencies age and space; 8.4 6-10

Mixed sexes herd (bull separated at ideally down to choice; some bulls don’t breed so when not in 7.8 1-10 times other than musth) musth; if breeding essential; should have choice;

Strong matriarch positive matriarch; not aggressive but strong in personality; in 7.7 1-10 terms of personality; not within our control Bulls in bachelor herds but have chance for mixed sex experience; not ideal but preferable 7.6 4-10 to?; if done right and allowed to develop psychologically; at a certain age and access to females Related herds compatibility far more important; depends on sex and age 7.3 3-10

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 192

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Resource Comments Mean Range

Bulls not lone housed* need the ability to separate if required; depends on character and 7.3 1-10 age (less than 5 not lone housed); definitely not permanently; have choice; Stable and consistent hierarchy depends on welfare of overall; more important in Africans (9) than 6.6 2-10 Asians (7); nice to have but achievable?; Mixed sexes herd (bull separated if male has free choice to separate himself; should have choice; 5.8 1-10 during musth only) depends on bull's behaviour in musth; depends on individual male mixed sex herd is default; Minimum group size 3-5 cows* depends; quality not quantity; it is about the welfare and the 5.8 1-10 individuals; COMPATIBLE cows; strong family group; if related and compatible Cows lone housed with auditory, depends on time/why? Etc; not to be lone housed unless essential 4.8 1-10 visual or olfactory communication short term for vet purposes etc; with other elephants*

Minimum group size 11+ cows* compatibility; depends on makeup of group not random 11 but 3.7 1-6 compatible; if related and compatible Minimum group size 6 – 10 cows* if related and compatible; compatibility 3.0 1-6

Mixed sexes herd (bull never if had incredible space; should have choice; should have choice 2.6 1-7 separated) and need ability to separate; can never say never; Bulls with females only 1.2 1-2

*There was disagreement in ranking of this resource in at least 2 of the 6 groups

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 193

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Table O.2: Enclosures resources - workshop mean rankings Resources Indoor/ Comments Mean Range Outdoor Not chained for long I 10.0 10 periods (e.g. overnight) Outdoor space O depends but needs a minimum which should increase; up to certain # of 10.0 10 allowance to meet elephants; has to be essential; aspire to have more; current minimum requirements (500 sqm/elephant)* Complex environments O 9.8 9-10

Natural light indoors I if proper natural light, not just a skylight 9.8 9-10 Complex environments I 9.7 8-10 Places to hide from other O 9.6 9-10 individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Furniture which enables I 9.5 8-10 scratching/rubbing More than one I depends on management system 9.5 7-10 entrance/exit between houses/paddocks Places to hide from other I depends on social grouping 9.0 6-10 individuals (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Water in the form of a O always a shallow entrance; espec for Asian elephants 9.0 7-10 deep pool with a shallow entrance Variety of substrates I 8.8 7-10

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 194

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Furniture which I 8.7 6-10 encourages stretching/climbing Good artificial lighting I 8.7 5-10

Free access O can leave them out in warmer time; option to choose, should be outside if 8.6 4-10 indoors/outdoors 24/7 in enclosure meets needs warmer months Free access O exceptions: calves, safety in extreme weather, security; providing it is safe 8.5 6-10 indoors/outdoors 24/7 for the elephants; given UK weather; social structure - babies? may have year round exceptions e.g. dominance issue push one outside; ice? calves? public footpaths?; Variety of substrates O 8.5 1-10

Variety of terrain (e.g. I less important than outside(for walking)-sleeping mounds essential; 8.3 7-9 mounds)* Free access I free choice vs. know what is good for them; 8.2 4-10 indoors/outdoors 24/7 in warmer months Indoor space allowance I this is BELOW current standards; we want more 8.2 1-10 to meet current minimum requirements (50 sqm/elephant) Activities not human led I if inside for long periods increase input 8.0 4-10 (no or few scheduled events) Furniture which enables O 8.0 1-10 scratching/rubbing More than one O if they have free access? amongst themselves important, less important if 8.0 1-10 entrance/exit between keeper led access. houses/paddocks

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 195

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Places to hide from O 8.0 3-10 public (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Variety of terrain (e.g. O 8.0 1-10 mounds) Sand O 7.8 1-10 Bark/woodchip O no agreement; need variety so include; 7.8 7-10 Visual barriers O from public(important),from conspecifics (essential);depends on social 7.8 6-10 dynamics; outside for separation from other individuals; Earth/soil O need variety so include; 7.7 1-10 Sand* I 7.7 6-10

Shelter from sun O 7.7 1-10 Woodland O if no limits or restrictions; resources permitting 7.7 4-10 Free access I disagreement; if feasible; impractical? 7.6 3-10 indoors/outdoors 24/7 year round Indoor space allowance I don't like 7.6 4-10 double current minimum requirements (i.e. 100 sqm/elephant) Bark/woodchip* I 7-10; doesn't work inside 7.5 6-10

Elephant made mud O need variety so include; 7.5 1-10 wallows Furniture which O 7.5 1-10 encourages stretching/climbing Water in the form of a O 7.5 1-10

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 196

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

wallow Heated shelter in winter O practicalities in question; assuming means outdoor shelter 7.3 2-10 Mud O need variety so include; 7.3 1-10 Places to hide from I 7.3 2-10 public (i.e. visual barriers, different areas) Shelter from wind O 7.3 1-10

Outdoor space O depends on compatibility; depends on complexity and research needed; as 7.3 4-10 allowance double current much as possible; size not as important as complexity minimum requirements (i.e. 1000 sqm/elephant)* Water in the form of a O species specific; shallow entry necessary 7.2 1-10 deep pool Sawdust* I 7.0 1-10

Activities not human led O is this Bl Drummond style - then important i.e. eles not brought in/separated 6.7 1-10 (no or few scheduled from group/activities for training; minimise by management events) Man-made mud wallows O need mud; no need to be man made; wallows; 6.7 1-8 Rubber flooring* I for training (vs. concrete) - yes; better than concrete, not as good as sand; 6.6 1-10 in limited areas Clay O different from mud? 6.5 3-10 Activities led by humans I depends on group(training sessions good);hubandry;so complex; 6.3 1-10 at scheduled times Activities led by humans O Depends on what is activity; but training ok; for smaller herds more 6.3 2-9 at randomised times* important; encourages dependence on humans; if healthcare then essential;

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 197

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Protection from O more research needed; be aware of it and investigate; we don't know 6.0 4-10 infrasound in the enough to assess impact; positive or negative,pain/disturbance,enrichment? environment* research needed; needs more research to know;

Visual barriers* I in new design can be avoided but may be necessary in existing housing; 6.0 5-8 depends on social groups-good to have option Water in the form of a O shallow area rather than pool; needs to be deep for Asians; more important 6.0 1-8 shallow pool* for Asians (8-9), Africans (5-6);if only source of water then essential Water in the form of a I assuming 24 hour access; essential if only water source 6.0 4-10 shallow pool Water in the form of a O individual thing 6.0 3-10 sprinkler/shower Activities led by humans O depends on 'activities'; depends on # of elephants, singly housed YES; not 5.8 1-10 at scheduled times* important for elephants but important for education; for husbandry needs; Mud* I assuming 24 hour access; practicalities; 5.6 1-10 Large barrier between I potential for temporary separation from public; if have other areas to 'hide' 5.4 1-10 public and elephants to minimise disturbance Protection from I research needed; research needed 5.0 2-10 infrasound in the environment* Restricted access O need to respond to very cold/icy conditions; especially sick animals elderly 5.0 1-7 indoors/outdoors in or calves; free choice? no (see exceptions on 24 hour access);too many colder months* variables; Sawdust O variety of substrates, ranked highly and novelty; depends how complex rest 4.2 1-7 of environment is; prefer natural; Water in the form of a I 24 hour access 4.2 1-8 deep pool with a shallow entrance

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 198

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Man-made mud wallows* I practicalities; assuming 24 hr access 4.0 4-1 Mixed species exhibits O depends on vulnerability to disease (eg TB),layout of enclosure, chosen 4.0 3-5 species, etc; novel enrichment, free ranging other species who can come and go seems nice to have Water feature which is O nice to have if funding available; indoors?(issue if outdoors);indoors; 4.0 3-6 heated in the winter Water in the form of a I assuming 24 hr access; if possible 4.0 wallow Large barrier between O secluded areas more important; visual/large space/large fence? must have 3.8 1-7 public and elephants to somewhere to 'hide'; minimise disturbance Water in the form of a I 24 hour access; practicalities permitting; what's the entrance like? 3.8 1-8 deep pool Water in the form of a O 3.5 2-1 waterfall Restricted access I need to have option for rare circumstances 3.4 1-9 indoors/outdoors in colder months Activities led by humans I depends on habitat, complexity, number in herd; 3.3 1-8 at randomised times* Earth/soil I 3.3 1-1 Concrete O if other substrates are soft, concrete has advantages for wearing down feet 3.2 1-8 but must be able to get off the concrete; for procedures; need a hard area somewhere but not necessarily concrete; no; Clay I assuming 24 hr access; if can be managed, drains! 3.0 1-1 Restricted access I need the option for rare circumstances - depends on safety 3.0 1-7 indoors/outdoors year round

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 199

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Not chained for short I only chained for short periods (only needed for health reasons);if training 2.8 1-10 periods (e.g. training) required at some point (e.g.travel)needs training; agree for short chaining periods but this question unclear Outdoor space O not feasible; not feasible; 2.8 1-1 allowance equal to natural home range size Water in the form of a I 2.8 sprinkler/shower* Restricted access I 2.6 1-9 indoors/outdoors in warmer months Rubber flooring O better than concrete; rip it up, better than concrete; useful in certain 2.6 1-1 circumstances, a variety of substrates is key; good to have diff substrates; variety important, but not essential on its own Elephant made mud I practicalities; assuming 24 hr access 2.5 1-1 wallows Never chained I for health purposes; important management tool (when needed);can't be 2.5 1-10 avoided(duration/rationale);need to have the possibility Water in the form of a I 2.1 1-1 waterfall Elephant enclosure not O disagreement: either (1) or (10); research needed; 1.7 1-2 near enclosures of natural predators* Mixed species exhibits I more awkward inside 1.7 1-1 Concrete I unavoidable, useful for training areas; 1.6 1-1 Restricted access O don't understand, too many variables; NO! free choice vs shut outside; 1.3 1-2 indoors/outdoors year ability to be able to restrict is essential; round*

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 200

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Restricted access O too many variables; NO! choice? ability to restrict is essential; 1.0 1-1 indoors/outdoors in warmer months* *There was disagreement in ranking of this resource in at least 2 of the 6 groups

Table O.3: Feeding & enrichment resources - workshop mean rankings Resources Indoors/ Comments Mean Range Outdoors Browse provided daily O 10.0 0-10

Browse provided daily I 10.0 0-10

Food provided in such a I 10.0 0-10 manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Trees/branches O 10.0 0-10

Variety of food and ways O 10.0 10 of feeding Food distributed O if grazing away all day then they already have access; include grass,24 9.7 8-10 throughout the day hours not distributed by keepers Food distributed I 9.7 8-10 throughout the day Some food placed high O 9.7 9-10 up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Scatter feed or similar I increase exercise whatever means 9.5 8-10 that encourages exercise

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 201

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Food provided in such a O 9.3 8-10 manner which provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. puzzle feeders, hidden treats, etc.) Scatter feed or similar O increase exercise is essential whether or not is for food; 9.3 7-10 that encourages exercise Variety of food and ways I complexity not variety of the same eg hay types,browse types,sweeds 9.0 7-10 of feeding carrots potatoes; Regular provision of O depends on definition of enrichment and herd dynamics; depends on 8.8 8-10 novel enrichment* individual; depends on setup: lots of herd interaction already/important where few elephants

Toys, e.g. tyres I prefer natural resources - good for removing frustration; don't like word 'toy'- 8.6 5-10 natural behaviour Large logs O 8.3 5-10 Large logs I how big? 8.2 5-10

Some food placed high I 7.8 6-10 up so that elephants must stretch to reach it Food provided through O a method of food throughout the day; or use staff depending on availability, 7.3 4-10 mechanical feeders at or if have masses of browse no need for mechanical feeding unpredictable times Food provided through I see other mechanical - had function overnight. 7.1 4-10 mechanical feeders at unpredictable times Grass for grazing O good to have a variety of substrates; not possible in winter! 7.0 3-10 provided for some time each day all year round

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 202

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Live trees O in enclosure for manipulation; will be trashed, provide browse; if money and 7.0 4-10 feasible; Toys, e.g. tyres O dependent on habitat; moving towards more natural things; high if other 7.0 2-10 substrates/furniture restricted Grass for grazing O not possible (or as enriching); ideal; not possible in our environment; 6.7 2-10 provided all day all year round Grass for grazing O all day? Not ideal b/c restricted time of access (ranked more access more 6.4 3-10 provided all day only in highly) the summer Grass for grazing O grazing ranked highly; we want more access; promoting movement 6.4 3-10 provided for some time each day during the summer Olfactory stimulation, O depends on individual and environment; depends on individual; 6.3 3-8 e.g. novel scents* Unbreakable mirror* I 5.3 1-10

Regular provision of I 5.0 1-9 novel enrichment* Olfactory stimulation, I not inside 4.6 1-8 e.g. novel scents Food provided through I probably detrimental; not necessarily need for mechanical feeder when 4.1 1-10 mechanical feeders at have enough complexity, grazing, etc. predictable times* Interactive auditory O enrichment; more research needed, no agreement (important/nice to have) 3.2 1-6 stimulation, e.g. chime Auditory stimulation, e.g. I possibly harmful? more research; music?(part of stimulating event) 2.8 1-10 music

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 203

Appendix O: Ranking tables from stakeholder workshop

Food placed high up so O some foods; not all, some yes; some food; some; 2.7 1-10 that elephants must stretch to reach it Interactive auditory I research needed 2.6 1-1 stimulation, e.g. chime Food provided through O 1.8 1-5 mechanical feeders at predictable times Unbreakable mirror O interesting 1.2 1-2 Auditory stimulation, e.g. O no; research needed and depends on type; research needed; own 1.0 1-1 music vocalisations Food placed high up so I not all food; not all 1.0 1-1 that elephants must stretch to reach it *There was disagreement in ranking of this resource in at least 2 of the 6 groups

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 204

Appendix P: Identified priorities for future research

Throughout the project, a number of further research needs were identified. These are summarised in the list below:

 Determine the consistency of night time behaviour over time  Examine the association between daytime and night time behaviour  Identify alternative methods to assess movement or activity levels  Identify alternative methods to assess demeanour relating to the adjective ‘depressed’  Further study of the interaction of an elephant's background with different measures in the new Elephant Behavioural Welfare Assessment Tool  Determination of the optimal of healthy amount of sleep required by elephants of different age ranges  Develop operational definition of social compatibility, and identify factors determining social compatibility between elephants  Determine indoor and minimum outdoor space requirements for different types of elephant groupings (cows, bulls, mixed groups, family herds, calves)  Assess levels of environmental infrasound at different facilities, and what short and long term impacts this may have on elephants  Determine indoor pool and water usage by elephants (and determine if this is different at different zoos)  Assess elephants’ usage of the enclosure, at each zoo  Determine the effect of predictable cues on anticipatory behaviour  Study elephants’ overnight: activity, behaviours, rest, and social behaviours (both affiliative and agonistic)  Assess the impact of different types of auditory enrichment

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 205

Appendix P: Identified priorities for future research

 Examine the effect of chaining for different periods of time  Assess the impact of use of crush vs. chains for restraint for short, minor procedures

Defra Project WC1081: Final Report 206