RATEL Vol. 43 No. 2. June 2016 Journal of the Association of British and Irish Wild Animal Keepers

ABWAK is proud to be a founding member of the International Congress of Zookeepers www.iczoo.org

RATEL is sponsored by: www.abwak.org www.abwak.org www.iczoo.org

The Association of British & Irish Wild Animal Keepers ABWAK is a non-profit making organisation catering for those interested in and involved with the keeping of wild animals. The aim of the association is: “To achieve and advance the highest standards of excellence in wild animal care” We believe that: • We are the professional association representing animal keepers in Britain & Ireland for whom excellent animal welfare is the highest priority • We can have a significant impact in welfare issues by bringing keepers and stakeholders together and by being a strong representative & consultative body • We can make a significant contribution to the training & development of animal keepers thus raising standards and increasing the recognition of wild animal collections • By developing the skills & expertise of our members we can make a unique contribution to conservation Membership rates (2016) - no increase in membership fee this year. (NB current rates are those given on our website, rates are reviewed annually). Professional or Associate £30 Joint Professional £50 Overseas £50 Subscription is for ONE copy of each issue of RATEL Subscription to RATEL only £50 and does not give membership privileges or rights

Vice Presidents: Jonathan Barzdo (founder); Dr Miranda Stevenson (retired) Hon. Vice Presidents: Rick Green; John Ray; Stewart Muir; Roger Wheater

ABWAK COUNCIL - elected by the Membership (all posts are voluntary). Co-Chair & Editor: Stephen Woollard*, www.ZooStephen.com Co-Chair & Symposium Secretary: Laura Gardner*, ZSL London Zoo Vice Chair (& ICZ) Nick Davis*, NEZS Chester Zoo Honorary Treasurer & ICZ rep Richard Barnett* (retired) Membership Secretary Terri Hill (private breeder)

* Executive Committee Other Members of ABWAK Council: Yianna Cooling, Twycross Zoo To contact the ABWAK Council: Lucy Manning, NEZS Chester Zoo General Enquiries Andy Moore, Colchester Zoo [email protected] Tim Morphew, Folly Farm Membership: [email protected] Vicky Snook, Port Lympne Wild Animal Park Mairee Vincent, ZSL Whipsnade Zoo Back Issues & merchandise: [email protected] Articles and advertising: we are currently recruiting and co-opting new members of ABWAK Council [email protected]

Advertising Full, half and quarter page advertising space is available (colour or black and white) – contact the Editor for rates.

© Copyright 2016 Association of British and Irish Wild Animal Keepers ISSN 0305 – 1218 Contents Vol.43. No.2. June 2016 From the editor 2 Folly Farm Symposium 2016: a fanfare of a success James Brereton 5

Sign Language in Zoos 6 Zara Wigg Breeding management of the short-eared sengi at 8 Chester Zoo Peter Watson Old turtle new tricks. Crate training a Florida softshell 11 turtle Joe Hutchins Some of the Folly Farm team, ABWAK Symposium 2016 Food preference in relation to size and type in a 14 photo: S.P. Woollard breeding group of common squirrel monkeys Debbie Bryson An alternative to netting captive birds 22 Paul Atkin ABWAK Photo Competition 2016 23 Saving the Scottish wildcat - a call for UK zoos 24 David Barclay The changing face of Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm 26 Adam Douglass

ABWAK COUNCIL News - Official Report of the AGM Our AGM was held on 5th March within the Symposium at Folly Farm and attended by over 150 ABWAK members with voting rights. A short report on activity over the previous 12 months, along with the Association’s accounts were presented. Members of Council standing down at this meeting to whom thanks were given: Marilyn Beech, Holly Johnson, Liah Etemad Members of Council re-elected: Stephen Woollard, Laura Gardner, Richard Barnett Council recruitment in progress - applications were invited and selected individuals will be invited to attend an ABWAK Council meeting, and may then be co-opted and put up for election in March 2017. Constitution & Byelaws - no changes proposed. However, notice is given that Council is reviewing the definition and qualification of the membership categories (Professional, Associate) and will bring any proposed changes to the next AGM. Membership fee - we were pleased not to increase the membership fee once again last year. Council proposed the AGM approve the mandate for Council to increase the fee if necessary by up to £5 in the next 12 months to secure the continued activity of the Association. TWO votes against this proposal were recorded, however, the motion was carried. Council will review income and expenditure through the year and decide if an increase is necessary. The next AGM will be held at Colchester Zoo, 4th March 2017. From the editor... Our 2016 Symposium at Folly Farm was an astounding success. Not only was it the first in Wales, it was the best attended ever with over 200 delegates! The staff and team at Folly Farm were superb hosts and the weather even behaved itself (albeit being rather cold). Thanks to the support of MAZURI, Folly Farm, and our speakers, alongside the work of Council, we not only kept costs low again but were able to invite guest speaker Steve Leonard, support Barbary Macaque Awareness & Conservation and award a cash prize for the poster competition. And we are producing a new ABWAK ZooKeeper T-shirt designed by Samantha Allworthy - who won the vote for best design. (See our facebook page).

Funds from Folly Farm, ABWAK, We received a lot of interest in our recruitment for new volunteer Council our raffle takings, and an additional members and a process of selection and then co-opting is underway. donation, enabled a cheque for Meanwhile we also have ABWAK WORKSHOPS in progress through the £3,000 to be presented to Sian year. A rhino workshop run on 7th May at Marwell and giraffe workshop on Waters for Barbary Macaque 14th May at Yorkshire Wildlife Park are being followed by: Awareness and Conservation Big Cat Keepers Workshop 16th June at Cat Survival Trust Flamingo Keepers Workshop 21st July at ZSL London Zoo This issue of RATEL is packed full of articles - thanks to all the contributors, and a reminder that the deadline for our September issue is 23rd July.

Should We Close Our Zoos? (opinion) Many of us watched with interest the BBC2 Horizon programme on 17th April (or on catch up). Not surprisingly many of the concerns illustrated focused upon species such as elephants, polar bears and of course cetaceans, Marius the giraffe too, and interestingly many of the examples used were not about UK zoos at all. The clever/provocative filming in a ‘closed and derelict’ zoo indicated that the presenter and producers were aiming to ‘push emotional buttons’ with viewers. Should we be bothered about such programmes? The audience figures are small, and many of the viewers have fixed opinions on either side. However, when a mainstream respected series such as Horizon covers this topic there are chances people of influence - including elected politicians - will be aware and contacted by viewers and lobbyists, and of course its more fuel to journalists in other media. As a membership association run by volunteers, ABWAK does not represent the zoo community and we do not engage with media or journalistic enquiry and will refer people to the zoos themselves and/or national and international zoo associations. What the Horizon programme didn’t address was the consquences of zoo closure and what would happen to animals; and the overall positive conservation contribution made by zoos in both financial and skills terms. At the same time, such programmes do highlight some of the difficulties in our work, not least in animal management practice and collection planning, and the fact we need the public to pay for the work we do, so have to attract them to our zoos. There undoubtedly will be continuing changes and improvements, and that may well mean closing some exhibits, no longer keeping certain species... and hopefully a much greater emphaisis on having a real impact and involvement in global conservation, not just the ‘ark principle’.

Stephen P. Woollard, ABWAK Chair & Editor; Zoo Education Consultant www.ZooStephen.com Please send articles for RATEL by email to: [email protected] 2 www.abwak.org www.iczoo.org

2016, SP.Woollard Photos ABWAK Photos ABWAK Symposium

3 Leading the way

Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0) 1376 511260 Fax: +44 (0) 1376 511247 www.mazuri.eu

SDS7778 Mazuri Ad 210x148mm AW.indd 1 11/05/2015 09:26 Folly Farm Symposium 2016: a fanfare of a success James Brereton The 2016 ABWAK symposium took place on the 5th and 6th of March, and was hosted by Folly Farm Adventure Park & Zoo in Begelly, Wales. As the largest ABWAK symposium ever, the event was attended by over 200 delegates, including guest speaker, TV vet Steve Leonard. The symposium kicked off with a fascinating insight into Folly Farm history, and featured a tractor ride I remembered from my own childhood. A range of current topics were featured, including updates on zoological collections in the United Arab Emirates, zookeepers & education, and some surprising updates on enrichment for raptors. Talks were interspersed by refreshment breaks, in which welshcakes, among other local delicacies, were provided. Mazuri had a stand, and issues of Ratel from the 1990’s were provided for interested parties. ABWAK merchandise was also on sale, including the browse identification book, Harpij, and ‘historic’ publications such as big cat management guidelines, and my personal favourite, The Management Guidelines for Bears and Raccoons. As is now traditional for ABWAK symposia, a range of workshops were prepared for all delegates. These practical workshops were highly valuable for exchanging information, and were of practical use for zookeeping. I personally attended a useful workshop on propagation of plants for zoo species, and was impressed with some of the practical tips for growing exotic plants for amphibians, reptiles, parrots, and destructive primates. Some of the ideas have helped me to cut down my own plant bills while, helping to speed my planting of vivariums. Other workshop topics included: enrichment, penguins, big cats, giraffes, rhinos and enclosure design on a budget, all graciously provided by the keepers at Folly. With a functional funfair on sight, the evening dinner was a dramatic success, while delegates practiced their skills on dodgems. The raffle ticket sales raised an amazing total of over £700 for macaque conservation, whilst many diverse prizes were claimed (the alcohol went first not surprisingly). The Sunday schedule included an inspiring talk on the SHAPE of enrichment and an update on Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) conservation. Drop in enrichment workshops and meet the keeper tours were new additions to the ABWAK timetable, and were a fantastic success. From a tour round the pump rooms of Folly Farm’s Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldtii) pool, to close encounters with the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardis) herd, delegates were able to gain first-hand experience with the collection’s inhabitants. With enough time to race round the collection, I was impressed by the rhinoceros house, free-flying birds aviary, complete with black crowned cranes (Balearica pavonina), and of course, the Chilean flamingo (Phoenicopterus chilensis) flock. We were able to witness the SHAPE of enrichment group presenting a bungee enrichment device for lions. Following from last year’s success, a poster competition took place, and entry topics included secretary bird studbook management, hippo training, and enrichment practices for a range of species. Congratulations to Folly Farm for the winning poster on their enrichment library. In recognition of current conservation pressures, ABWAK & Folly Farm presented Dr Sian Waters with a cheque for £3,000 to continue her work protecting Barbary macaques in Morocco. This work is crucial to the further protection of the species. Thank you to Folly Farm for hosting the event, complete with all 200+ delegates! From the food to the species encounters, there were some fantastic experiences at the collection. Meeting other keepers and networking has been useful for many at the symposium, myself included. I look forward to the future symposiums.

Next year’s conference will take place at Colchester Zoo 4-5 March 2017. If you’d like to get involved with a presentation or poster submission, please contact any member of ABWAK Council. We look forward to seeing you at the next symposium! 5 Sign Language in Zoos

Zara Wigg Animal Training Supervisor/Zookeeper, Combe Martin Wildlife Park

Zoos provide an excellent opportunity to connect people to the natural world and educate people about issues that are threatening wildlife worldwide. As zookeepers most of us are also presenting to the public daily, whether that be doing animal shows and displays, giving a talk or assisting in zookeeper for the day experiences. As a zookeeper I enjoy sharing my passion for wildlife with our zoo visitors. As a parent I feel very passionate about making our zoo education programmes accessible, fun and inspiring for people of all ages and abilities. My 20 year old brother was born profoundly deaf and has a cochlear implant, then in 2010 at three months old my daughter Hannah Wigg was diagnosed with a moderate severe/severe hearing loss. When I received deaf awareness training from Hannah’s assigned teacher of the deaf I was overwhelmed by the difficulties children with even a moderate or one sided hearing loss face every day! Fortunately Hannah benefits from hearing aids, however take her to the zoo and background noise from the animals and the public impair her ability to hear and learn from keeper talks and animal shows. Hannah uses Sign Supported English (a form of British Sign Language) that helps support her language development. Hearing aids have their draw backs; background noise is a huge issue. Thousands of hearing aid users’ young and old struggle with crowded places like our zoos and are not able to access a lot of the education we are offering. We have disabled toilets and ramps to make our zoos physically accessible but what about the hearing impaired and the blind? Does your zoo have a sensory garden? Do you have items like ivory, skins, horns and bones that can be touched and seen close up? Handling animals? Do you have any facilities to help hearing aid users or deaf people? Loop systems? Sound field systems in education rooms? I heard about the ZSL Special Children’s Day and the Colchester Zoo Special Senses Day and wanted to spread the word! These annual events involve sensory activities, improved disability access, British Sign Language interpreters for the talks and shows, story and song sessions in sign language and lots more! What an amazing opportunity to reach out to families who are supporting children and adults with additional needs! BIAZA agrees and awarded ZSL with the education award for their special children’s’ day in 2012. So at this year’s ABWAK symposium I wanted to share some zoo animal signs with fellow ABWAK members, I have received a lot of support from fellow zookeepers and I think it was a good, fun and interactive lesson on sign language and deaf awareness. I was delighted with how many people were interested in sign language and it was great to see everyone joining in and giving the animal signs a go. Sign language is good fun and very easy to pick up, some basic signing skills could be a real asset to your zoo’s education programme and it could make the day of a zoo visitor who relies on sign to communicate. Variations of British Sign Language such as Makaton (simplified sign) are becoming very useful in teaching and helping children with a variety of additional needs and disabilities so it’s not restricted to the deaf communities. So how can we make a trip to the zoo more ‘deaf friendly’? Sign language on zoo signage is not only a great and easy way to include some BSL into your zoo but it’s a fun additional activity for all your visitors to have a go at whilst enjoying their day out. I show people the sign for meerkat during our meerkat talk. I then get them to have a go and then explain why it is signed that way which leads you onto sentry duty and predators. It’s a very easy way to make your keeper talks a bit more interactive. All the best nursery rhymes and songs had actions. Kids love to do the actions and I’ve found that kids really enjoy signing regardless of what their hearing is like. Another great way to educate people about animals is to show people. This can be done with naturalistic foraging enrichment or in the form of animal shows or flying displays. Training animals for these displays is not only highly enriching and stimulating for the animals it provides a visual form of education, for example in our sea lion show at Combe Martin Wildlife Park we do a litter retrieval behaviour, and a behaviour where the sea lion collects a ring with green net attached to show the dangers of discarded netting to marine life. This does not need script or subtitles and the message is accessible for deaf people and hearing aid users who may struggle to hear your scripted message over a microphone. Having a general awareness for the needs of the visitors we are trying to reach out to during our interactions with them can have a huge impact on what they take away from their experience at the zoo. As much as a lot of keepers would rather spend their time with the animals than the public, they are after all why we are here doing what we do. We are on the frontline of conservation. We are in a unique position to inspire behaviour and attitude change to help conserve our planet and our rich biodiversity. ‘No one will protect what they don’t care about, and no one will care about what they have never experienced.’ Sir David Attenborough. In the end we will only conserve what we love. We love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.

Baba Dioum, 1968 Paignton Zoo sign

7 Breeding management of the short-eared sengi (Macroscelides proboscideus) at Chester Zoo Peter Watson Mammal Keeper, Chester Zoo [email protected]

The short-eared sengi (Macroscelides proboscideus) is an insectivore belonging to the Macroscelididae family and is the smallest of the seventeen recognised species of sengi. Its scientific name Macroscelides proboscideus is translated from Greek as ‘long femur and trunk’. They are covered in soft, dense fur which is usually a dark brown colour. The ventral part of the body is white/ cream and the tail is covered in coarse black hairs. Probably the most famous feature of the short-eared sengi (also known as the short-eared elephant shrew) is their long mobile nose. Adults weigh 40g - 50g fully grown and measure 12cm nose to rump with a 13cm tail. M.proboscideus is found in grassland and semi arid areas of Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. Their diet consists of roots, shoots and small insects. Gestation is around 52-64 days and 1-2 young are born. Life expectancy in the wild is thought to be 1-1.5 in captivity 3.5 years is average, but animals living for up to 6 years has been recorded. Chester Zoo first began keeping this species in November 2014, with the arrival of three femalesfrom Stuttgart Zoo, Germany. The three animals were moved into glass fronted enclosures measuring 180cm x 60cm, with a central slide allowing each enclosure to be split into two equally sized enclosures of 90cm x 60cm. This was a deliberate design feature in order to allow mixing and separating of breeding animals in the future to be simple and stress free. Each enclosure was equipped with an LED strip light on a 12 hour day/night cycle. Heating was provided by a 40 watt ceramic heater on a thermostat, maintaining an ambient temperature of 18-23oC, with localised basking spots of 26-30oC. A substrate of kiln dried sand was used and hide areas were provided in the form of large flat rocks and closable capture boxes, allowing easy capture of animals when required. Diet consists of a morning feed of finely chopped fruit and veg, an afternoon feed of finely chopped fruit and veg, porridge oats and insectivorous mix, with millet and a dusting of nutrabol added twice a week. Livefood is provided in the form of mealworms, locusts and crickets on a rotational basis, with the same item never being fed two days in a row. A male arrived from Wuppertal Zoo, Germany in February 2015 and was placed in one half of the breeding enclosure, adjacent to one of the females. The first introduction took place a week after the male’s arrival. The initial mixing was not successful with a large amount of aggressive chasing being seen for the first few days. After being together for ten days both animals had noticeably lost condition with regular aggression was still seen and so the decision was taken to separate them and allow them both to regain their condition before further mixing attempts. Three weeks later the animals were re-introduced. On this occasion the interactions between the pair were much more positive with very little chasing being seen. It was noted that immediately after introduction both animals were foot drumming to each other using their back feet, a behaviour which has been noted in all (subsequent) successful mixings at Chester. The pair remained together for twelve days before the female quite quickly began to lose condition and became aggressive towards the male. All of the M.proboscideus in the collection are weighed on a regular basis as part of their weekly routine. When they first arrived in the collection theM.proboscideus were caught and weighed within boxes, however this was considered too stressful to do on a regular basis and so we began placing scales within the enclosures and luring the animals on to them using mealworms. This method was found to work very well and within a few weeks several of the animals had become inadvertently conditioned to the scales, walking straight on to them without the use of mealworms. Once we had a potentially pregnant female the regular weight recordings became particularly useful. As a rule female M.proboscideus weigh 40g-50g and by taking weekly weights we knew that this particular female was slightly lighter than this, averaging 38g. For the first month following her separation from the male the female showed no gain in weight. However, after a small drop of 2g a steady increase began to occur. The final weight was taken two days before the birth when she weighed 57g, showing a total increase of 21g in 36 days. Once we were certain that the female was pregnant the male was removed from the adjacent half of the enclosure, allowing the female to be given access to both sides, giving more space to raise any offspring. 9 On the 21st June 2015 the female gave birth to two offspring, a first for Chester Zoo. This was 58 days after the date of separation and as the gestation of this species averages 60 days it can be assumed that conception occurred towards the end of the pairs time together. Following the birth all cleaning was halted for the first 5 days and disturbance kept to an absolute minimum. The allowance of live food was increased slightly with an additional morning feed to account for lactation. The young, which are born precocial, grow very quickly and following some aggression towards them from the dam were separated from her at 42 days; they were separated from one another shortly after this. M.proboscideus are easily sexed and this can usually be done from 7 days of age, however we prefer to wait until the young are well established at around 21 days of age. As a delicate species handling should be kept to a minimum. We opted to handle ours with the use of canvas bags, first running the animals into the capture boxes within the enclosures and then transferring them into the bags. Once in the bags they can be encouraged into a corner of the bag, restrained and then the material rolled down around them in order to expose the genitalia, with care taken to avoid damaging their fragile legs. (See pictures left: male top; female bottom). Following the birth of the first litter a further five animals have been bred successfully at Chester to date, all within seven months. Since the first pairing was successful only after the second mixing, a model which involves mixing pairs for two weeks, separating them for one week and then mixing again for two weeks has been used. This has resulted in offspring whenever used and it appears that in most cases conception actually occurs when the animals are mixed for the second time. Some collections opt to leave the male with the female on a permanent basis, throughout the birth and rearing of young, however we have decided not to do this as injury to the young by the male can not to be ruled out and a greater control on birth intervals is possible by carefully managed introductions. The short-eared sengi has proven to be a delightful and fascinating species to work with. Whilst initially their breeding posed some challenges, close monitoring of individual behaviour allowed for a continually successful method of pairing to be developed within a relatively short space of time. After maintaining the species off show for the first year, two females were put on display the zoo’s Secret World of the Okapi exhibit in November 2015 and have proven to be an incredibly popular addition to the collection.

Acknowledgements: David White and the Twilight Team at Chester Zoo, Lucy Edwards, Tim Rowlands and Nick Davis.

10 Old turtle, new tricks: Crate training a Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox) Joe Hutchins Birdworld Park and Gardens

Birdworld Park and Gardens houses a range of species, with some reptile species housed on exhibit in Underwater World, the onsite aquarium. One of these is a male Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), affectionately known as Godfrey. Godfrey joined the collection in late 2001, an ex-pet who spent 19 years with his old owner, before a further four years moving through various collections and reptile rescues. Like many turtle inhabitants of our collections, Godfrey was quite capable of mass destruction to his previous tanks and moved from one tank to another as he broke them. He even spent a period living in with the spectacled caiman that used to be housed in the collection, however he very quickly became fiercely territorial of the pond and refused to allow the crocodilians access to the water – needless to say he was soon moved again for “bad behaviour”. Eventually Godfrey was housed in a tank that stood up to his brutish behaviour, however it was not of the largest size and plans were made to replace it. To facilitate the move into, and out of, temporary accommodation, the decision was made to crate train Godfrey. Why train? Training is acknowledged as a form of enrichment (Westlund, 2014), and as such would be adding to Godfrey’s enrichment programme, encouraging physical activity, mental stimulation and helping in his management (Laule and Desmond, 1998). Training chelonians, and other reptiles, is becoming more common in the zoological setting (Mohan-Gibbons and Norton, 2010), although many aspects of reptile enrichment still lag behind their mammal and avian counterparts (Burghardt, 2013). From a practical point of view, with their claws, powerful jaws, and long protrusive necks, Florida softshell turtles are as difficult and dangerous to handle as many other softshell species (Somma, 2009), and training makes moving and working with Godfrey safer from a keeper perspective. An introduction to the species The Florida softshell turtle is North America’s largest softshell turtle species, inhabiting the South East United States, from southern South Carolina across to Mobile Bay, Alabama, and south throughout Florida, with the exception of the Florida Keys, where only one population is found on Big Pine Key, and this is believed to be introduced (Stewart, 2009). This species is primarily aquatic, and are usually found in freshwater ponds, lakes, and even drainage ditches, as well as some brackish areas, but nearly always in areas with muddy or sandy bottoms which they will burrow into, leaving only part of their head out (Hammerson, 2014). Primarily carnivorous, this species feeds on invertebrates, fish, and birds (Ernst and Lovich, 2009; Stewart, 2009). Because of its large size and relative abundance, the Florida softshell turtle is believed to have formed a supplementary food source for humans for several thousand years, with the harvest still continuing 11 into recent times (Iverson and Moler, 1997). The lifespan of this species in the wild is apparently unknown, however captive specimens often live over 20 years and an individual housed at the National Zoological Park in Washington reportedly lived over 36 years (Stewart, 2009). Training set-up Due to the design of the enclosure, it was more practical to train Godfrey on exhibit, and how often sessions would take place was quickly decided. Godfrey’s diet involved a variety of invertebrates twice weekly, turtle pellets once weekly, and chopped sprat once weekly. Although invertebrates were attempted as a reward, these did not prove feasible as Godfrey would not work effectively for them. He would not take them as a tong feed, and when putting the invertebrates in the tank, even when in front of him, Godfrey would not take them instead keeping his attention focussed on his trainer. He was used to taking pieces of sprat from the tongs, and as a result this feed was turned into a training session. To avoid any alteration to his diet, sessions were kept as once weekly. The process The process used to train Godfrey to enter a crate was the same as used with many other species. Initially we target trained him to a red ball on a stick, which he took to very quickly, however due to space constraints, it was decided that although a primarily aquatic turtle, Godfrey’s crate would be placed on land. The reason for this was to allow Godfrey as much choice in his training as possible, especially during the desensitisation process, whilst further into the training process, if only on the move day itself, we would place the crate partly into the water if necessary and if Godfrey appeared comfortable with this. This was one of the first hurdles to overcome as Godfrey was not confident in coming onto land. Before training, Godfrey would rarely bask with keeper presence, diving into the water as soon as looking at. Target approximations were increased further and further onto land, however, although Godfrey was improving in speed responding to the target all the time, progress was slow getting him onto land. Despite an improving bond with his keepers, the first time Godfrey hauled over half of his body out of the water was an enormous milestone, several long weeks into his training. Shortly after this however, Godfrey became confident enough to come onto land, to the point he ran up onto the straight up onto the land area and out of his enclosure. He quickly came back and after this came onto land more readily, although running out of his enclosure was something he never did again. When it came to introducing the crate, Godfrey was initially very nervous, and a great deal of desensitisation work was required, including dismantling the crate and supervised periods with the crate outside of his training session. This latter technique appeared to be the most effective. Further difficulties were also presented by training on exhibit, as the presence of visitors initially distracted Godfrey, particularly in the early stages of training, however, as Godfrey progressed through his training he came to stay focussed for all but the largest crowds. Whilst this did slow down individual sessions, training off exhibit was not an option, and it was also beneficial for public 12 viewing. This is because it allowed the public an insight into aspects of Godfrey’s husbandry that they would not otherwise have seen, and meant that he was active and visible for the public throughout the training session. The results Godfrey’s training came to its climax when it came to testing: to move him out of his enclosure into temporary accommodation while his tank was renovated. Godfrey’s training session was started the same as any other, and upon crating the door was closed, a weight reading taken, and Godfrey was moved to his new enclosure within a matter of moments. Once let out, Godfrey targeted straight away and the session was continued largely as normal – extra time was allowed between each target request to allow Godfrey the choice to explore his enclosure, however when the target was presented he came over readily with no difference in speed to a normal session. Sessions were continued whilst the new enclosure was completed, and Godfrey was soon in his larger enclosure, around eight times its previous water volume! What next Godfrey’s training was set to continue with training to come onto a scale for weights, and to aid the creation of ‘animal art’ for use in conservation fundraising. Unfortunately this was not to be the case. After a period in his new enclosure, during which it was like having a new turtle, active and curious, swimming well once he was used to it and increasing his repertoire of natural behaviours, Godfrey became unwell and after a short illness, he died. He was believed to be 38, and will be missed.

13 Food Preference in Relation to Size and Type in a Breeding Group of Common Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) Deborah Bryson Royal Zoological Society of Scotland Edinburgh Zoo

Abstract Edinburgh zoo houses a breeding group of 21 Squirrel monkeys in a mixed species enclosure at The Living Links to Human Evolution Research Centre. This study was conducted to find out food preference within the Squirrel monkey group as previous observations had shown individuals preferring different foods types and sizes. This had not been studied before and although food had always been cut to one small size it had long been debated whether varying sizes would be beneficial for the different ages, sexes and life stages within the group. Over the period of 28 days: February – March 2013 food preference tests in relation to size and food type were carried out. Using four repeated seven day cycles, one fruit and one vegetable was chosen from their diet, half were cut small (1cm cubes) and half large (1/4 or 1/8), this was fed in the indoor enclosure at the same time and locations every day, a collection of leftovers was conducted the next morning, food was weighed before feeding and leftovers weighed after being taken out. Data was analysed using homogeneous chi squared tests and column graphs. Results indicated that there was little preference over the size of food presented to the squirrel monkeys; however there was a low bias towards fruit over vegetables, possibly due to the high water quantity and sweetness of the fruits. Introduction The Common Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri sciureus) is a tree dwelling primate, widespread throughout South America (Vermeer, 2006). They adapt well to different environments and can be found in a large variety of habitats: wet and dry tropical forests, forest fragments, mangrove swamps and primary and secondary woodlands that have an abundance of fruit and insects (Schuler & Abee 2005). In the wild they live in family social troops of as little as 10 individuals up to several hundred (Vermeer, 2006). Larger groups often display fission-fusion (Boinski 2005) splitting into different sub-groups that will forage, feed and 14 rest together, these will often have their own dominant male, his females and their offspring, whereas smaller troops will have only one or two alpha males in total. The younger males will leave together to find females of their own between 2 - 4 years of age (Schuler & Abee 2005). Females tend to stay with the troop they are born into unless bullied out. Although there are alpha males they will generally live on the outer perimeter of the group until breeding season when the dominant males ‘fatten’ and mating begins (Vermeer, 2006). Fattening is when the male gains fat on his upper body, this is partnered with a rise in spermatogenesis, he will become more excitable, vocal and aggressive to attract females and in larger groups the most dominant will get leadership (Saimiri Natural History, 2013, Online). Figure 1 – Inside Squirrel Monkey enclosure showing various age ranging individuals In the wild squirrel monkeys are frugivorous and insectivorous, they generally choose to live in areas that are fruit and insect rich, this making up the main bulk of their diet (Vermeer 2006). However past studies: (Lima & Ferrari, 2009, Terborgh, 1983, Boinski & Fragaszy, 1989) have shown that they may adapt their diet due to region, species and seasonal selection. Previous studies on their diet in the wild, has shown them to feed opportunistically on insects and seasonal fruits (Vermeer 2006). Their captive diet is a mixture of fruit and vegetables, proteins such as chicken, eggs and insects and a primate pellet to ensure it meets their nutritional requirements. As there is a mixture of sizes and ages within this group, there has long been debate of whether their food should be cut to varying sizes to allow easier feeding. Their food has previously all been cut small as it was thought to be necessary for the weaning babies to be able to carry and eat it and older juveniles were thought to benefit from it as they can ‘grab and run’ with small pieces of food, larger pieces may mean they have to stay on the spot and eat the food, allowing more dominant individuals to aggress and take food from them. However larger pieces would seem more appealing as they have a bigger surface area, this would be what they have in the wild, and would give the individual more nutrients. Squirrel monkeys are very active and require a lot of energy from their diet, making it seem more likely that they would be attracted to larger pieces of certain foods. Aims The aim of this project is to find out if the Common Squirrel monkeys do have preference over the food that they choose. The following hypotheses will be investigated: 1) Does the group have preference over the size of a food item? 2) Does the group prefer fruits over vegetables? Materials and Method Animals Edinburgh Zoo houses a breeding group of 21 Squirrel monkeys in a mixed species, purposely built enclosure in The Living Links to Human Evolution Research Centre. The group is made up of one alpha male ‘Boa’, 10 breeding females aged between 5 and 11 and their juveniles (7 females and 3 males aged between <1 and 3). They share an outdoor enclosure with Brown Capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella). The study was carried out in the indoor enclosure; it measures 5.5m X 7m X 6m High. Their diet consists of; primate pellets, fruits, vegetables, insects, chicken, eggs, baby food with supplements and dried fruits and nuts for rewards during training. Water is available ad libitum from self-refreshing drinkers. Procedures Data was collected over 28 days from the 9th February – 8th March 2013, using 4 repeated 7 day cycles. There were 14 different food items in total: 7 fruits and 7 vegetables, the table shows what was fed on each day and quantities. 15 The weights for each item were taken from their normal daily intake. Larger and heavier items were cut into 8ths, others were quartered. Figures 2 & 3 – Photographs: Tomato and Pepper examples of how fruits and vegetables were chopped (1cm cubes & ¼ or 1/8ths) Weights were recorded before and after food went into the enclosure. The food was given at 1pm everyday (this is a normal feeding time). The two chosen items were the only foodstuffs they were given at this time. The monkeys are fed three times per day: 8.30/9am, 1pm and 5pm, the 1pm feeding was chosen as there is enough time between feeds for the monkeys to be hungry and they have until the next again morning to eat the food. The morning feed was ruled out as it contains banana which is a favourite and would be chosen over any other foods that were given at the same time. The 5pm feed was ruled out as they get insects at this time and also a mixture of baby food, casilan and complan. These are also both favourites, and could have altered the results. Food was placed equally over 5 feeders/rock surfaces. These 5 feeding stations were chosen by monitoring the average favourite feeding areas of the group as a whole over a few months prior to the study. The two items were mixed together in the bowl prior to being fed to ensure there was some of both the fruit and vegetable going onto every feeding station. The feeding stations can be seen in the diagram below, numbered 1 - 5: Figure 4 – Diagram of enclosure and where feeding stations are. Figure 5 – Photo of enclosure with feeding stations circled in red The remains of the food were collected the following morning and weighed and this was recorded on a raw data collection sheet. At this time data was also recorded on whether they had outdoor access or not (due to bad weather) and what the weather was like. Data Analysis Amounts of every item eaten were converted into daily percentages to analyse preference over size. This was separated into individual fruits and vegetables over the four week period to analyse the preference over large and small pieces, showing an average percentage consumption of each. Homogenous chi squared tests were used to see if the data was evenly distributed and outputs were summarised in tables. The data for total percentage of fruits and total percentage of vegetables was worked out and placed onto a spreadsheet to compare the results. Column chart s were used to illustrate preference over fruits and vegetables. Total percentages of every large fruit and vegetable and small fruit and vegetable were tabulated on another spreadsheet, reanalysed using a column chart to see at a glance if there was preferences over size of each item. Data was also separated into individual items and compared over the four weeks to see if there was any difference in the preference of size of one item consumed compared to the four weeks. This was put into graphical form. Results Below is the analysed data of Average percent of Large and Small Items Eaten. Table 1 - Average % of Large & Small Item Eaten

After doing this analysis for all 14 items it was noted that the percent of large and small food consumption was almost the same for some fruits and vegetables. These results were displayed in graphical form, to make it easier to analyze: Graph 1 - % of Large and Small Fruits & Vegetables Consumed Chi squared tests were used to statistically test for regularity in results. To find out if the amount of small (1cm cubes) and large (1/4 or 1/8) food (in grams) being chosen oven a four week period by the squirrel monkeys were even. Null hypothesis: there will be a preference towards larger food. Table 2 shows the statistical outputs attained from a homogenous chi squared test to show how much food of each size the monkeys ate. Table 2 – outputs of how much of each size of food the Squirrel monkeys ate after a homogeneous chi squared test was carried out.

Fruit and Vegetables were compared in graphical form to see whether there was any preference of total average % of fruits eaten and total average % of vegetables eaten. The results can be seen in Graph 2. Graph 2 – Comparison of Total % of Vegetables Eaten V’s Total % of Fruits Eaten Graph 3 – Weekly Comparison of the Amount of Fruit and Vegetables Consumed Graph 4 – Weekly Comparison of the Amount of Fruit and Vegetables Consumed Graphs 3 and 4 show that there was a significant preference to smaller (1cm pieces) over the four week testing period of Courgette, Parsnip, Carrots, Aubergine, Oranges and Kiwi over larger (1/4 or 1/8) pieces. There appears to be no preference to larger pieces of fruit or vegetables and majority of them – Pepper, tomato, Peaches, Pears, Papaya, Cucumber, Plums and Potato have relatively even consumption. Discussion Does the group have preference over the size of a food item? From Graph 1 and chi squared test it can be observed that there appears to be little or no preference in food size for Common Squirrel monkeys when choosing which size to eat for most fruits and vegetables, especially with peppers, peaches, pears, papaya, oranges, cucumber and potato (all <1%, almost 50% eaten). All their values were 50% average eaten for both large and small pieces or within 3% of 50% eaten. From table 1 and Graph 1 it can be seen that the most obvious difference in preference was in aubergine with an average 42.14% of small pieces consumed and 27.7% of large pieces consumed, showing a bias for smaller 1cm cubed pieces, this was similar to Kiwi with 31.74% average large eaten and 49.32% average small eaten, again showing a bias for small 1cm pieces. N.B. as none of the numbers add up to 100% the loss was put down to food that had been missed. There is a small bias towards small pieces of tomato with a difference of 3. 67% and courgette and also a small 6.9% bias towards small pieces of parsnip this result was similar with carrot (8.64% ) this could be due to the item being heavier/harder to bite through. The largest differences in size preference was aubergine (14.17%) bias towards smaller pieces and kiwi (17.58%) difference again bias being towards small pieces. This could be explained by looking at the number of juveniles and weaning youngsters in the group, there are 10 individuals aged between 1and 3, almost half of group total, it has been stated by Vermeer (2000) that juveniles and weaning individuals require more energy as they are very active, therefore consumption is higher. Squirrel monkeys tend to feed by ‘grabbing and running’; smaller pieces allow juveniles to do this without too much competition from more dominant individuals. However this does not indicate why there was often no bias in size preference with many of the other food items. Figure 6 – Alpha male ‘Boa’ Sitting eating on feeding platform during ‘fattening’ Boa the alpha male was ‘fattening’ for the start of the breeding season at the time of the study, during this period he requires extra energy to allow his body to go through changes – increase in spermatogenesis and upper body fat (Dowling, 2013, pers comm), he will become more excitable and vocal all these adding to a need for increase in food consumption to produce the extra energy needed. Larger food may seem more appealing to him as it will give him more energy. The Chi squared results in table 2 were both higher than the critical value of 27.69 at 13 degrees of freedom, with a level of significance of 0.01. The p-values of 37.05 (large food) and 40.73 (small food) are higher than the critical value of 27.69 at 13 degrees of freedom therefore it can be stated that the null hypothesis can be rejected and there is no preference over size of food (Fowler et al 2006). Graphs 3 and 4 analyse the amount of each fruit and vegetable consumed over the 4 week period to see if there was any difference in preference over the time scale. The results showed relatively even preference of small and larger pieces of pepper, tomato, peaches, pears, parsnip, cucumber, plums and potato and a preference to smaller pieces of courgette, parsnip, carrots, aubergine, oranges, kiwi as stated previously parsnip and carrot could be due to hardness/heaviness of larger pieces of these vegetables, courgette and aubergine due to their lack of water content. Weather was considered as the monkeys are locked inside during extreme conditions e.g. heavy snow and gale force winds. This could either increase bias towards eating a larger amount of food due to being in the same place all the time/boredom, or decrease the amount eaten due to group competition and a lower energy requirement as they are not as active. Only food left in the indoor enclosure was weighed due to the outdoor enclosure being too large (900m2) and overgrown for accurate food retrieval. Also, as the group shares an outdoor enclosure with a group of 15 Brown capuchins (Sapajus apella); it would be impossible to state which leftover food belonged to which species. During testing the weather was very varied – some days were warm and sunny and others had snow. As the sample size was only over a month and the weather had every extreme it is difficult to see any effect that it had, a longer test period with results analysed against weather would be required to determine the effect of weather on squirrel monkey eating habits. Does the group prefer fruits over vegetables? Graph 2 shows a comparison of the total percentage of vegetables eaten versus the total percentage of fruits eaten to see if there is bias towards either. It would be expected that they would show preference to fruits over vegetables, similar to their wild diet (Wolfensohn & Honess 2005). The results show there is a low preference for fruits with all 7 types 80% consumed or over, possibly more appealing due to sweetness, fleshy fruits such as papaya, peaches and pears showed the highest preference, possibly due to high energy content (Wolfensohn & Honess, 2005). Four vegetables were over 80% consumption, these were peppers, courgette, cucumber and potato. Potato is boiled prior to feeding, this would make its water content high, as is cucumber’s (see below for water content relationship). Boiled potato breaks up very 19 easily when handled and particles could easily get lost in the biofloor affecting end weights. Peppers are a sweet and juicy vegetable therefore attractive to the monkeys; however courgette does not have a high sugar or water content, further analysis of the nutrient content must be done to determine the attractiveness of this vegetable. Three vegetables were under 80% consumption; these were parsnips, carrots and aubergine. Carrots and parsnips are a harder dried vegetable, less appealing to the monkeys than softer fruit, aubergine is a dry, spongy vegetable that may not be appealing as squirrel monkeys obtain a lot of their water content from their food (laska 2001), in a study by Laska (2001) it was observed that captive Squirrel monkeys rarely drink from water drinkers provided in enclosures, the results showed preference to juicy fruits and cucumber (highest water content of all foods chosen) perhaps suggesting that water content of fruits and vegetables helps determine food choice, it also states that body size and gut morphology may also be contributing factors when choosing food items. Squirrel monkeys have a short digestive tract (Vermeer 2006) this means that the food that passes through it does so quickly but with a very efficient nutrient extraction system to allow a lot of food to be digested in a short period but maximise nutritional intake into the body (committee on animal nutrition 2003). Therefore choosing nutrient high food items would enable then to eat a lot and get high nutrients/energy from it. Factors which could potentially affect the results are: accounting for food loss – the monkeys taking food outside and bringing Capuchin food into their indoor enclosure, Squirrel monkeys can be quite messy eaters (Veremeer 2006), dropping pieces as they chew it up, there is no way of telling if smaller pieces being found are chewed up pieces of larger items, possibly making the amount of small pieces taken out more and the weight higher. Conclusion and Improvements It can be concluded from the data that Common Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri scuireus) do not have a size preference over different fruits and vegetables, however there is an occasional small bias to smaller items of some food stuffs possibly due to the amount of juveniles in the group. The troop appear to prefer juicy, sweet fruits over vegetables, this could be due to their similarity to wild diet. Squirrel monkeys live close to or in the canopies of seasonal fruit trees and move their home range according to this seasonal change (Boinski & Fragaszy 1989), due to nutritional and water content (Laska 2001) or life stages of the group however further research is required. If this study was to be repeated there are a number of improvements that could be made. Larger sample periods incorporating all life stages – alpha male fattening for breeding season, adult female pregnancies/ lactation (females may chose foods that are higher in folic acid during this time Vermeer 2006), babies weaning and juveniles reaching sexual maturity as these all have differing levels of energy consumption. Observing monkeys after feeds to see what size of food / type each age group chooses first (visually tally for first 30 minutes after receiving food to see preferences). Placement of food could have an effect on results – some use areas more than others, in this study food was placed in almost the same locations every day, an improvement could be placing it in variable locations. Individual food preference testing - one on one to see individual preferences to item and size, taking individuals away from the group and presenting them with pairs of foods in different sizes and record their preference, this will eliminate social context from the results. Analysing nutritional content of all food items tested to see if there is preference over proteins (wild squirrel monkeys gain a lot of protein from insects, possibly meaning captive individuals have a preference to protein rich foods (Laska 2001) and other nutrients e.g. carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals and calories to meet their need for a high energy diet, however there is little information on the fat and carbohydrate requirements of this species (Vermeer 2006). Possibly moving feed time to their last feed so there is a shorter time between feeding and morning pick up, or increasing the sample size so that all their diet is included for all 3 feeds per day, helping to create a larger picture of preferences. There may be a preference over items depending on ripeness, changing nutritional content and sweetness depending on how ripe a fruit is, this may sway the monkeys to choose an item they would not usually choose, attempting to feed fruits at the same stage of ripeness may be needed (Laska 2001). Recommendations I recommend that this study is repeated based on the variables I have outlined above. Also that Squirrel monkeys receive their food chopped to different sizes to allow all ages to feed without fear of more dominant individuals and to allow weaning babies to be able to handle smaller pieces. Acknowledgements I would like to thank: the Living Links team members for helping me conduct the study on days when I could not be present and for careful husbandry of the monkeys. 20 References Personal Communication Dennis, A. (2013). Helped with data collection. Various days: 9th February – 18th March 2013. Dowling, A. (2013). Common Squirrel Monkey (Samiri sciureus) Studbook Holder. Helped with data collection and background information on the feeding habits of Squirrel Monkeys. Various days: 9th February – 18th March 2013. Quigg, J. (2013). Helped with data collection. Various days: 9th February – 18th March 2013. Norris, J. (2013). Helped with data collection. Various days: 9th February – 18th March 2013. Pearson, S. (2013). Helped with data collection and background information on the feeding habits of Squirrel Monkeys. Various days: 9th February – 18th March. Talbot, R. (2013). Helped with data collection. Various days: 9th February – 18th March 2013. Other Boinski, S. Fragaszy, D.M. (1989). The ontogeny of foraging in Squirrel monkeys. Animal behaviour. 37: 415-428. Boinski, S. (2005). Dispersal patterns among three species of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedii, S. Boliviensis and S. sciureus): III. Cognition. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Behaviour 142, 679-699 Chamove, A.S., Anderson, J.R., Morgan-Jones, S.C., Jones. S.p. (2005). [Online] Deep Woodchip Litter: Hygiene, Feeding, and Behaviour Enhancement in Eight Primate Species. Primates for Primates. Available at: http://www.awionline.org/Lab_animals/biblio/ijsap1.html [Accessed on 11th January 2013] Committee on Animal Nutrition. (2003). Nutrient Requirements in Nonhuman Primates. National Research Council of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. pp 5-27. European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. (2013). [Online]. European Endangered Species Programme. Available at http://www.eaze.net/activities/cp/pages/eeps.aspx [Accessed on 12th May 2013]. Fowler, J., Cohen, L., Jarvis. (2006). Practical Statistics for Field Biology. Second Edition. Wiley – Blackwell Publishing. pp 111-115, 237. Laska, M. (2001). A comparison of food preferences and nutrient composition in captive squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus, and pigtail macaques, Macaca nemestrina. Department of Medical Psychology, University of Munich Medical School. Physiology & Behaviour, 73: 111-120. Leonard, R., Buchanan-Smith, H.M., Dufour, V., MacDonald, C. Whiten, A. (2009). Living Together: Behaviour and Welfare in Single and Mixed Species Groups of Capuchin (Cebus apella) and Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). American Journal of Primatology 72: 33-47. Wiley-Liss inc. Lima, E.M. Ferrari, S.F. (2009) Diet of a free ranging group of Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) in Eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Folia Primatologica. 74: 150-158. Saimiri Natural History. (2005). Saimiri Breeding and Research Resource. [Online] Available at: http:// file://E:\saimirinaturalhistory.htm [Accessed on 11th January 2013] Schuler, A.M., Abee, C.R., (2005). Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri) enrichment for nonhuman primates. Department of Health and Human Services. pp 1, 4. Sparsholt College Handbook (2011) Unit 2: Research in Zoos and Aquariums. Diploma in the management of Zoo and Aquarium Animals Sparsholt College Handbook (2012) Unit 11: Animal Research Project in Zoos or Aquariums. Diploma in the management of Zoo and Aquarium Animals Terborg, J. (1983). Five New World Primates. Princeton University Press. Vermeer, J. (2006). EEP Husbandry Guidelines for Squirrel Monkeys (genus Saimiri). La Vallee des singes, Romagne, France. pp 4, 8, 15, 24 – 25, 30, 43. Vermeer, J. (2000). Report of an EEP survey. The Nutrition of Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri). La Vallee des singes, Romagne, France. Wolfensohn, S., Honess, P. (2005). Handbook of Primate Husbandry and Welfare. Blackwell Publishing. pp 16, 75, 118. Zootrition. (2002). Dietary Management Software. [Online]. Nutritional information. Available at http://www. zootrition.org [Accessed on 12th May 2013]

21 An alternative to netting captive birds Paul Atkin Senior Bird Keeper, ZSL London Zoo In recent years netting captive birds has become a contentious issue, particularly when seen from a public perspective where it can look very stressful with a terrified bird desperately trying to avoid keeper’s nets. Added to this, many zoo birds are now kept in large mixed exhibit walkthrough flights making capture even more challenging. Whilst the skill of netting a bird will always be needed in the case of emergencies, such as capturing an injured bird for medical treatment, with a little bit of forethought and planning we can drastically reduce the need to ‘chase’ a bird with a net. In turn we can reduce the stress put on it and just as importantly the stress to cage mates and occupants to adjoining aviaries. Most bird catch ups are planned in advance. Either the birds are leaving a collection, being moved for pairing/ breeding reasons or fledglings being removed from parents etc. Therefore, if the move has been planned in advance, why not the means of capture as well? Sometimes, after assessing the situation, netting will prove to be the obvious option but that doesn’t have to be the case every time. Case Study At ZSL London Zoo we have a run of 4 small holding aviaries which can be combined via hatches to make a single flight or 2 larger flights etc.(Figure 1). Catching birds in these small aviaries previously proved to be problematic, as they’re relatively small and, once cage furniture is taken into account, there is hardly enough room to turn. It occurred to us that since the birds housed at the time were used to flying through the hatch connecting the two flights, why not simply stick a net over the hole and let the bird fly into the net. The very first attempt, which simply involved holding a normal net over the hatch, did not work. The bird, a white-eye Zosterops sp., naturally seeing that the escape route was blocked refused to try to go through the hatch, but this got us thinking, what if we used a material the bird could see through. The very first prototype (figure 2) involved a piece of stiff card cut to the same size as the hatch and a net made from plain household net curtain, glued along the sides with fabric glue and cut to a tapered end. When the next catch up was planned, the card frame was simply stuck in place over the hatch using Velcro and the bird, again a white eye, was encouraged to use the hatch. This time the bird did attempt to use the hatch but it was simply too light to be able to push itself into the net and bounced off and back into the same aviary. The next stage in the development was to attach a hook approximately 30cm along the net which could be hooked onto the mesh roof. This opened up the net enough for the bird to enter it completely before coming into contact with it. We also strengthened the frame by replacing it with wood and attaching more hooks along the top section so it could be hung from the mesh roof, (figure 3). These adaptions proved to be very successful and so far, with all further catch ups where the hatches have 22 been used to join up aviaries, the birds were caught very quickly, with very little fuss and reducing the stress involved. In situations where the hatch had not been in use, we found it much more difficult to encourage the bird to enter the net, since it had no experience of using the hatch as an escape route. We also found that slightly larger birds, such as Red Whiskered Bulbuls Pyconontus jocosus, didn’t need the third hook since their body weight and momentum is enough to open the net alone. Care and forethought should be taken if the aviary houses more than one bird. In this instance you may run the risk of ending up with several panicking birds in the net at once, a less than ideal situation since they could accidentally harm each other. Since the capture method is planned and coordinated in advance this issue can easily be mitigated by also planning for this eventuality in advance, e.g. having a second member of staff to restrain them as soon as captured. Further adaptations This net is still at the prototype stage and further improvements will be made to address any further problems we come across. In keeping it as simple as possible it should be a fairly flexible method of capture which can be easily adapted to a variety of situations. In discussions with colleagues and keepers from other collections one idea would be to use dark mesh at the bottom of the net to reduce stress once the bird is captured. Conclusion In the limited time we have been using this method we have found it to be hugely successful, not only in efficiently capturing the birds and reducing the amount of stress but also in saving time from a staffing point of view.

ABWAK Photo Competition 2016

Categories: To Enter: 1. Life as a Wild Animal Keeper Please include the category you have entered, your Images should show a keeper(s) at work and may name and email address along with a description of the illustrate any aspect of the working day; for example, photograph. Send your photos to abwakphotos@ this category may include animal care, veterinary work, outlook.com along with a description of the photograph training (where the staff member involved is clearly and the category you have entered. (Max size of each shown), visitor engagement, cleaning, researching etc... photo 10MB). LANDSCAPE format is preferred. (Terms & 2. Enrichment or Training Conditions apply). Images should illustrate the use and effectiveness of Results - The results will be announced in the December enrichment or training. (The enrichment or training issue of RATEL, www.abwak.org, ABWAK Facebook and method must be clearly identified and described). ABWAK Twitter. Please note that only successful entrants 3. Animal Portrait in a Zoo/Aquarium will be contacted individually and no correspondence will be An individual animal or group of animals photograph. entered into regarding the entries or results. The photographs entered in this category must be taken There will be one winner and 2 runners up in each category. in captivity (UK & Ireland) and be accompanied by a Prizes: The 4 category winners will win: 1 year membership note on species, and location taken. to ABWAK (either as a renewal or as a new member) 4. Animal Portrait - Wild and copy of the December RATEL in which winners An individual animal or group of animals photograph. photographs are published. Runners up will receive: copy of The photographs entered in this category must be taken the December RATEL in which their photo is published. Full in the wild (UK or abroad) – and be accompanied by a acknowledgement will be given to the winning contestants. note on species, and location taken. (entries received A short written description is required with each entry, CLOSING DATE: 31st AUGUST 2016 after this date will not be judged) .MAX 3 entries per category identifying species, location and any relevant information. per person. Saving the Scottish wildcat – a call for UK zoos! David Barclay, RZSS Cat Conservation Project Officer

One of eight kittens born in 2015 (RZSS/A.Riddell, 2015) Wherever you read about Scottish wildcats – be it in scientific journals, conservation based magazines, websites, in the press or on social media – you tend to hear the same thing over and over again. The wildcat in Scotland is considered critically endangered. Although current population estimates range from 35 up to 250, what is clear is that this figure has decreased dramatically over the past few decades and the species is in real danger of disappearing altogether over the next decade. Threats from persecution, prey reduction and habitat change have played their part in the population decline, but the straw that threatens to break the camel’s back comes in the form of hybridisation from feral cats. As a result of these worrying statistics and threats, conservation organisations across Scotland established the first national action plan for the species (Scottish Wildcat Action, as it’s now known) to halt the decline of wildcats and restore viable populations across the Highlands of Scotland. A key component of this plan is a conservation breeding for release programme to support future reintroductions into the wild. The programme is coordinated by RZSS, who are also the current studbook holders for the captive population. As we all know, modern zoos have many ways that they feed into conservation projects. Through education, fundraising, communications, awareness raising, field work support and research (both in-situ and ex-situ), zoos are able to contribute a great deal to projects all over the world. In particular, well managed captive breeding programmes give us future options for population restoration which, in many cases, we do not know initially if we’ll need or not. This is most certainly the case with Scottish wildcats. About fifty years ago, Scottish wildcats started to make regular appearances in captive zoo (and private) collections. At that point in time the intention was most probably to exhibit and educate people on the last remaining felid in the UK, and to give people the opportunity to catch a glimpse of these tenacious and elusive predators. Fast forward to 2016 and we still have Scottish wildcats in our zoo collections and boy should we be grateful. A species that was brought into zoos to excite and educate people is now an incredibly valuable population that could be one of the last true hopes of having sustainable wild populations of wildcats in Scotland. If the population estimates are even close to accurate, it would be fair to say that the likelihood of their being any healthy, sustainable wild populations that are all interconnected (to allow gene flow) is highly unlikely. With this in mind – and as we do with many species across the world – we should work toward building up the captive population, bringing in new blood and establishing a healthy, robust and genetically diverse population that will enable us to carry out reintroductions further down the road in areas where threats have been reduced and wildcats can thrive. So the question now is what UK zoos can do to make this happen? As a critically endangered native species it goes without saying that ALL zoos in the UK should work towards having Scottish wildcats as part of their animal collection, actively contributing to the captive breeding programme, increasing enclosure space to allow further breeding and at the same time supporting the efforts to save the UK’s last native cat species. Let us celebrate the value of UK zoological collections and their contribution toward conservation and work together to save another key native species. If you would like more information with regards to joining the breeding programme or for supporting the conservation project please contact David Barclay, RZSS cat conservation project officer and Scottish wildcat studbook keeper. You can also find out more information at www.scottishwildcataction.org

One of three on-show Scottish wildcat enclosures showing raised walkways at Highland Wildlife Park (RZSS/D.Barclay 2016)

Elevated view of the Highland Wildlife Park off-show conservation breeding for release enclosure (RZSS/D.Barclay, 2016) 25 The Changing Face of Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm Adam Douglass, Elephant Keeper

Over the last nineteen years, Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm has grown beyond recognition. Originally a small dairy farm based within the Tyntesfield estate, just outside Bristol; Noah’s Ark has grown into one of the south west’s top tourist attractions, set in over a hundred acres of rural Somerset and welcoming over 200,000 visitors each year. Now home to a variety of both domestic and exotic animal species, Noah’s Ark is continuing to improve its visitor experience and embrace developments in husbandry practices. The development of Noah’s Ark has been particularly visible over the last five years, as it has exceeded the current standards for enclosure design with the completion of two new major exhibits, Elephant Eden and Andean Adventure. Throughout this short article, I will give a brief overview of how Noah’s Ark has developed over the last two decades, and highlight some of the key landmarks in its development. A brief history (1960-2011) Noah’s Ark is built on the site of Moat House farm, a 17th century listed building owned by Anthony and Christina Bush who operated a dairy farm on the site from 1960 until 1995. Their pedigree herd of Friesian cattle was then sold and the land was kept for arable use. In 1997 they began to rebuild the disused farm buildings and prepared to open their own animal park, then called Noah’s Ark Farm Centre. Noah’s Ark opened for its first full season in 1999, exhibiting mainly farm animals, rabbits, guinea pigs, goats and a small number of exotic animals such as wallabies, rheas and llamas. In the early millennium, the zoo began to expand with the building of a five hundred seat “Ark Arena” to be used for animal shows, and new enclosures for birds, primates and reptiles. In 2005 the first of the zoos large mammals arrived, in the form of two Southern White Rhinos. This was followed shortly after by the arrival of the zoo’s Giraffes, Zebras, Tapirs, Capybaras and Ostrich. In 2007 “Gibbon Gallery” was built for two Siamang Gibbons as part of the European Endangered species Programme (EEP) who have since gone on to breed successfully. The new big cat house was completed in 2009 and was shortly followed by the arrival of Bengal Tigers and African Lions. Elephant Eden (2013) Plans for the development of Noah’s Arks major new exhibit “Elephant Eden” were officially unveiled in September 2011. This was preceded by several years of research and planning, including visits to all UK collections housing elephants to discuss enclosure design and welfare considerations. This marked the beginning of a new chapter for the zoo, as it was by far the biggest project that the park had undertaken in its nineteen year history. Noah’s Ark was awarded a £260,000 grant through DEFRA to help build the new exhibit, after the department saw the value of the project for rural development, and its potential for boosting the local economy. Construction work began in spring 2012, and was completed the following year. Elephant Eden is now the largest elephant facility in the UK, having a combined indoor and outdoor area of just over twenty acres. This also makes it one of the largest elephant exhibits in Europe. The outside areas consist of four sand yards and three large grass fields; one of which contains a two acre willow plantation. There is also an additional eleven acres of willow planted on site to provide additional browse for the elephants and other animals. Other outside features include two hay nets, a protected contact training wall, a mud wallow, a pool and various enrichment items. Inside the house there is a large sand area which can be split into three separate pens if necessary, with two adjacent protected contact training stalls, a training chute and weigh scale. There is also a separate indoor sand area for housing an adult bull elephant, which also includes its own adjacent training stall. The sand is 1.2 metres deep and is cultivated every day, ensuring that the sand never becomes compact and loses its effectiveness in keeping the elephant’s feet and joints healthy. All together the house is three times larger than the minimum guidelines recommended by BIAZA. Other indoor features include five motorised hoists that are used as part of the elephants feeding and enrichment regime. These hoists are attached to the ceiling and are controlled by computer software which allows the keepers to raise and lower the hoists either manually or via a timer. Using this system means that feeding and enrichment items such as hay nets, browse and enrichment barrels can be attached to the hoists and lowered down into the elephants reach 24 hours a day. This allows the staff to keep the elephants busy throughout the night, rather than just during keeper working hours. The facility also has a high definition camera system that records the elephants 24 hours a day. This is a particularly useful feature as it allows the keepers to look back at footage from the previous night and note any interesting behaviours. It also makes it possible for the recording of sleeping patterns. Clips from these recordings can be exported and saved for future reference. The camera software also makes it possible for live footage to be streamed off site, via the internet. This is another highly useful feature, as it makes it possible for keepers to check up on the elephants from home. Elephant Eden also has an overhead sprinkler system throughout the house to ensure that the sand does not become overly dry or dusty. This sprinkler system extends to the training stalls to provide showers for the elephants. These showers are temperature controlled and can be adjusted to suit each individual elephant’s preference. The indoor house is viewable to the public throughout the day and has a built in PA system that is used during the popular daily elephant presentation. This presentation includes a discussion on the elephants and their history, the facility and its key features, elephant conservation and how elephants are trained in protected contact. The public are shown a live training demonstration by one of the keepers, whilst a second keeper explains how protected contact training works. Keeper talks and presentations are given throughout the zoo and are very popular. We regularly receive positive feedback about the information shared at these presentations. There are also many environmentally friendly features included within the exhibit. The house is heated by a highly energy efficient biomass boiler, which burns recycled wood chippings for fuel. There are solar panels on the roof that contribute significantly to the electricity used to power the house. Also, the outside pool is filled by harvested rainwater that has been filtered through a reed bed reservoir next to the house. These environmentally friendly additions to the house helped Noah’s Ark achieve a ‘Gold’ award from the Green Tourism Business Scheme, both in 2013 and 2016. Elephant Eden has been designed to keep elephants in a protected contact management system with the long term goal of housing a breeding family herd. The exhibit was designed under the guidance of elephant management consultant Alan Roocroft, who has described Elephant Eden as a “five-star facility for elephants”. Mr Roocroft continues to consult for Noah’s Ark and is helping its elephant programme to achieve its long term goals. In the 2014 BIAZA elephant management audit, Noah’s Ark achieved 96% compliance with the husbandry guidelines, one of the highest scores of all the UK’s elephant collections. Elephant Eden is currently home to two young male African Elephants, Janu who arrived from Port Lympne in September 2014 and M’Changa who arrived from Boras Zoo in November 2014. Andean Adventure (2016) Following the success of Elephant Eden, the next major exhibit to be built at Noah’s Ark was the new Spectacled Bear exhibit, Andean Adventure. Designed to allow for future breeding, Andean Adventure consists of two large outdoor enclosures, three outdoor yards, four indoor dens (two of which are viewable to the public) with raised sleeping areas and one off show cubbing den. In total, the exhibit covers two acres. Outdoor features include a waterfall which leads to stream and down to a pool, several large timber climbing frames and two caves embedded within a grass hill. 27 Having a stream allows for the bears to experiment with different depths of water, ranging from shallow trickles down to the full two metre depth of the pool. The outside area is also overlooked by a public watchtower, allowing visitors to view out over the main exhibit. The smaller of the two outdoor exhibits however, is deliberately secluded. This area has been placed away from the public and has been heavily planted, providing the bears with the privacy that they require when they are going through the delicate process of rearing cubs. Like Elephant Eden, Andean Adventure is also a highly environmentally-friendly exhibit. Rainwater is again harvested from the roof of the exhibit and used to help run the bears waterfall, stream and pool. During the summer months, some of the water being pumped from the pool is then diverted off towards the zoo’s willow plantation, to help keep the browse hydrated. Andean Adventure also uses energy efficient T5 fluorescent and LED lights. Many of the flooring materials in and around the Andean Adventure exhibit have been locally sourced. All enrichment trees, climbing logs and platforms are from sourced from local trees; much of which has been grown within Noah’s Ark itself. Additionally, the straw that is used for the bears’ bedding is sourced from the zoo’s farm. The bears themselves also contribute to the fertilisation of the farms crops, their dung is spread (alongside other farm manure) on the wheat fields. Andean Adventure is currently the home of two Spectacled Bear brothers, Tupa and Sonco, who both arrived from Frankfurt Zoo in March 2016. However, there are future plans to turn Andean Adventure into a mixed exhibit featuring Squirrel Monkeys and possibly Coatis. European Endangered Species Programmes (EEP’s) Noah’s Ark has been part of the EEP’s for Siamang Gibbons since 2007, African Elephants since 2014 and Spectacled Bears since their arrival earlier this year. Noah’s Ark has also been working with the White Headed Vulture European Stud Book (ESB) since 2010. The management of Noah’s Arks Gibbons has been praised by the EEP for the responsible handling of its breeding animals. Not only has the zoo been able to successfully breed their Gibbons, but it has also been able to separately house and manage its own surplus stock. All of the primate diets throughout the whole zoo have also had a complete overhaul and are now entirely fruit free. All primate diets are now species-specific and have been calculated to meet each animal’s nutritional requirements. A growing visitor attraction Over the last five years, the number of visitors coming to Noah’s Ark annually has almost doubled. In 2010, the park attracted 107,683 visitors. In 2015, that number reached 200,430, and the zoo is expecting another increase this year. Feedback and reviews left by the public are also very favourable. At the time of writing, Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm has an average review of 4.5 stars on Facebook (based on 1,128 reviews) and 4 out of 5 on Trip Advisor (based on 561 reviews) leading to the awarding of a ‘Certificate of Excellence’ as a high-value visitor experience. Most reviews praise the zoo’s family friendly atmosphere numerous children’s play areas, large enclosures with ample visitor viewing and informative keeper presentations. Noah’s Ark has been awarded for being a high quality visitor attraction and for its green credentials. Since 2000, Noah’s Ark has won ‘Gold’ in the Green Tourism business scheme, a ‘Quality Badge’ from the Learning outside the Classroom Scheme and a ‘Sustainable Tourism’ and ‘Access for All’ accolade by the Bristol Tourism and Hospitality Awards. Conclusion Despite its humble beginnings as a small ex-dairy farm on the edge of Somerset, Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm is continuing to grow year after year. The building of Elephant Eden in 2013 and Andean Adventure in 2016 are a clear statement about where this collection intends to go. As visitor, staff and animal numbers all continue to increase; the future of Noah’s Ark looks promising. Future plans for the collection and what to build next are currently being discussed, however the zoo plans to continue in the vein set by its previous two projects, 28 and build beyond what is expected of such a small collection. Writing for RATEL - Guidelines to Authors Submit articles to [email protected] Feature articles – approx 4 to 8 sides of A4 (longer articles are considered, the journal is however only 28 pages each issue). ‘Short’ articles usually 2 pages A4. Microsoft Word 11 or 12 pt Arial or Times New Roman font preferred. The piece should have a title, author name(s), place of employment/study, job role, and then the text. Your contact email address will only be published if it is included within the article submission. Content – permission to report on events etc in a zoo is assumed to have been granted to the author and it is their responsibility to ensure all content is acceptable to the zoo(s) and staff involved. Opinion and comment should be identified as such, and publication does not reflect any endorsement or recommendation by ABWAK. Content should not be libelous and must be the original work of the author(s) and the editor reserves the right to reject articles if this is known to be not the case. ABWAK prefers original and unique work, however, the article may have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere – this information should be provided with the submission. Articles reporting upon studies/events more than 5 years ago are unlikely to be published unless the historical context is a key part of the article/topic. We aim to keep articles as current as possible (ideally reporting upon studies and events that have recently been completed or are on-going). Dissertations/college projects - we will publish articles resulting from such work but the editor and ABWAK will not edit project and dissertation submissions - you must create an article and submit that. Illustrations – please supply as labeled separate image files (JPEG etc). The journal is published in colour throughout. You must have permsision to use for publication any illustrations you include in the article. Tables and Graphs/Charts – these may be included within the main text, however, separate graphs and excel data files etc are useful to have, and usually ensure better reproduction in print. Photographs are also considered for the front cover - portrait format are best for this, but landscape can be used. If people are included in any photograph then permission to reproduce the image is assumed to have been obtained. Acknowledgements/credits will be included if provided. References should be included if relevant. Commercial reference – products that are integral to the content can be mentioned, e.g a type of foodstuff or medicine used and supplier. However, we reserve the right to edit if the commercial reference is seen to be an advertisement. (Advertisements are charged for in the journal). Audience – the majority of readers are zookeepers, staff working in zoos, and students undertaking animal care courses. Articles should be written for the general and/or specialist reader and appropriate references given within the article and listed at the end. If animal/plant scientific names are given the usual common name should also be used/given and illustrations are most welcome. The editor may edit articles for spelling, grammar and/or content, and we may decide not to publish or not to use all the illustrations. If there are major suggested changes the article will usually be sent back to the author for checking/modification. Authors will receive a complimentary copy of the journal in which their article is published. No payment is made. Copyright of the published article belongs to ABWAK and the author. ABWAK may reproduce the article and images for its own purposes and this may include online. Any further questions and for submissions please contact the editor by email [email protected] Publication Dates: the journal is published 4 times a year: March, June, September and December. Submission Dates: you may submit material at ANY time, the deadlines for each issue are: 23rd January; 23rd April; 23rd July; 23rd October Stephen P Woollard Co-Chair & Editor Vision: “To achieve and advance the highest standards of excellence in wild animal care”

Mission: “ABWAK is a membership organisation for those interested & involved in the keeping & conservation of wild animals, which seeks to achieve the highest standards of excellence in animal care through communication, cooperation, training and development” www.abwak.org

Contents From the editor Folly Farm Symposium 2016: a fanfare of a success James Brereton Sign Language in Zoos Zara Wigg Breeding management of the short-eared sengi at Chester Zoo Peter Watson Old turtle new tricks. Crate training a Florida softshell turtle Joe Hutchins Food preference in relation to size and type in a breeding group of common squirrel monkeys Debbie Bryson An alternative to netting captive birds Paul Atkin ABWAK Photo Competition 2016 Saving the Scottish wildcat - a call for UK zoos David Barclay The changing face of Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm Adam Douglass

© Copyright 2015 Association of British and Irish Wild Animal Keepers